Conservative Boast

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

And yet wont or cannot define or qualify exactly what is and is not pornography so that it can be banned.

It can be banned. You are just unwilling to do so because of some misguided belief in freedom. I don't understand this reticent and instinctual defense of something which is so detrimental to the social fabric.

I do not argue that.

Yet you support pornography and refuse to take any action to legally penalize it. Why should we, on Christianity, support free expression of pornography? Why should a liberal or libertarian ethic be more important in regards to this issue but a Christian ethic is more appropriate on other matters?

If one does not render unto Caesar let them be prosecuted.

I am more than willing to render taxes to Caesar but that does not mean we don't recognize the situation for what it is and this does not give Caesar the unlimited authority to do whatever with said money, especially when it results in bad management of finance.

Freedom to not want to live in a pluralistic society? Yes, but we would have to move somewhere isolated.

Do you believe we have the right to advocate politically and build towards said society within an existing one?

I just don't understand why the boast about it.

Because people boast because they're proud. Plenty if leftism boast about their leftism.

 

[Palmfever]

I am not avoiding an answer. But it sounded like you equated toleration with supporting. Now you say you do not.
I tolerate but do not support sin in general.

"Do you support it being taught in school as a natural life choice?"
I think at some point it must be dealt with in education but I don't know how in a public school.

I tolerate but do not support sin in general.

Huh" Whaaat? Don't support sin in general? Only in specific areas?

"Do you support it being taught in school as a natural life choice?"

It is not a natural life choice, it is a deviant choice. If Adam and Eve were queer there would be no us.
Think Aids, and yes I know the origins.
Think monkeypox which according to the world heath org was 98% Queers.
Now think anal HPV
And other issues stemming from using from using the solid waste disposal unit as a playground.

I thought I was clear enough. No,
While God forbears and postpones judgment on some. It will happen. Get on board.
There is no room for ambivalence. No room for wishy washy emotional concern for flakey delicate lost ones. Speak the truth.
God never said, Come here let's open a big barrel of feelings and party. He said "Come let us reason together." "My people die from a lack of knowledge."
We do no service to the lost when we generously pitch in for their one way ticket to destruction.

This sums up my thoughts on teaching children to approve of deviant sin as natural.
Luke, 17:"2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

 

[childeye 2]

I just asked in OP because that is what I see on add. Conservatives boasting about it and Liberals quiet about it.

But it is an age old divide. I think most evident to us since the renaissance and the challenges to orthodoxy from science and higher scripture analysis.

The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. Liberal/Conservative just become labels without any practical application if personal boasting is involved. It's not like it's possible to label one side the good guy's club and all non-members turn into bad guys by default. When it comes to scriptural analysis, render to Ceasar what is Caeser's and render to God what is God's comes to mind.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It can be banned. You are just unwilling to do so because of some misguided belief in freedom. I don't understand this reticent and instinctual defense of something which is so detrimental to the social fabric.

What exactly would you ban? And don't just say pornography. that is too vague.

 

[Laodicean60]

Progressive liberals tend to believe individuals should live however they want so long as they don't violate the no harm principle? What room for morality is in that equation?

Do you want to force your morality on liberals?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I tolerate but do not support sin in general.

Huh" Whaaat? Don't support sin in general? Only in specific areas?

I don't support sin. But I do tolerate it. OK?

"Do you support it being taught in school as a natural life choice?"

It is not a natural life choice, it is a deviant choice. If Adam and Eve were queer there would be no us.
Think Aids, and yes I know the origins.
Think monkeypox which according to the world heath org was 98% Queers.
Now think anal HPV
And other issues stemming from using from using the solid waste disposal unit as a playground.

That is a religious belief.

I thought I was clear enough. No,
While God forbears and postpones judgment on some. It will happen. Get on board.
There is no room for ambivalence. No room for wishy washy emotional concern for flakey delicate lost ones. Speak the truth.
God never said, Come here let's open a big barrel of feelings and party. He said "Come let us reason together." "My people die from a lack of knowledge."
We do no service to the lost when we generously pitch in for their one way ticket to destruction.

This sums up my thoughts on teaching children to approve of deviant sin as natural.
Luke, 17:"2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

So let God be the judge. We can admonish others but don't expect to enact laws based on religious beliefs.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Do you believe we have the right to advocate politically and build towards said society within an existing one?

Yes, if we can give rational arguments based on more than our religious beliefs.

Jesus said turn the other cheek. So it is my religious belief that guns should be strictly controlled. Lets pass a law. Are you ok with that?

 

[Palmfever]

That is a religious belief.
Yes it is, but it is also a natural issue as well and has impact on society.

So let God be the judge. We can admonish others but don't expect to enact laws based on religious beliefs.
Who is talking about enacting laws on sodomites? It is they that are pushing an agenda.

God is the judge.
It's like pulling teeth...
I've gleaned enough from you Akita.
See you down the road somewhere.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Why do people boast of being "Conservative", especially politicians?

Isn't that basically an admission to being unable or unwilling to adapt to the changing realities of the world?

Conservatism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes, if we can give rational arguments based on more than our religious beliefs.

This presumes our beliefs aren't rational and that we as Christians aren't allowed to hold power over others unless it passes the standard of some other system of thought. Presumably one they agree with, but why would non Christians agree with us about what is right or wrong?

Do non Christians have to get us to agree with their laws in order for us to comply with them fully? Or are we as Christians to simply surrender this front to them?

Jesus said turn the other cheek. So it is my religious belief that guns should be strictly controlled. Lets pass a law. Are you ok with that?

You mean all power and force should be in the control of secular governments. I don't think we should interpret the gospel as giving the state total power.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What exactly would you ban? And don't just say pornography. that is too vague.

Again. You're knowingly defending pornography despite previously admitting you considered it destructive and dehumanizing. Why are you so in favour of this vile thing?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Again. You're knowingly defending pornography despite previously admitting you considered it destructive and dehumanizing. Why are you so in favour of this vile thing?

Why are you twisting my argument?

Tell me what exactly would you ban? Again, I am not defending pornography as you accuse me of. I am saying unless we can clearly define it we can neither ban nor enforce such a ban.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This presumes our beliefs aren't rational and that we as Christians aren't allowed to hold power over others unless it passes the standard of some other system of thought. Presumably one they agree with, but why would non Christians agree with us about what is right or wrong?

I am talking logic. If you want to pass a law you cannot base your argument on a religious' belief. and expect to pass it Don't you know that ?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You mean all power and force should be in the control of secular governments. I don't think we should interpret the gospel as giving the state total power.

Why? That is my religious belief. Can I not, at least expect you as a Christian, to agree?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Why? That is my religious belief. Can I not, at least expect you as a Christian, to agree?

No, because it's not so much a religious belief as it is a belief of Christians who had adopted secular modernity as their primary system of morality and how law ought to work. The early Christians were more than willing to defy earthly law whereas you are willing to adopt it and not only that empower it absolutely.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I am talking logic. If you want to pass a law you cannot base your argument on a religious' belief. and expect to pass it Don't you know that ?

Do yoy believe Christianity to be illogical? I don't and believe Christianity is justified, though not merely with appeal to its logical coherence.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Why are you twisting my argument?

Tell me what exactly would you ban? Again, I am not defending pornography as you accuse me of. I am saying unless we can clearly define it we can neither ban nor enforce such a ban.

You already know what pornography. Hence I'm not going to get into this game with you.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You already know what pornography. Hence I'm not going to get into this game with you.

Because you have no answer.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Because you have no answer.

Tell you what. I'll help.

The MPAA, the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), and the International Film Importers & Distributors of America (IFIDA) came up with a rating system.

• Rated G: General audiences – All ages admitted.
• Rated PG: Parental guidance suggested – Some material may not be suitable for children.
• Rated PG-13: Parents strongly cautioned – Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
• Rated R: Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
• Rated NC-17: Adults only – No one 17 and under admitted.

Whatever went into agreeing on these rating we don't know. But they exist. Let's say we ban all NC-17 content.

Now how do we enforce it on the web?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Do yoy believe Christianity to be illogical? I don't and believe Christianity is justified, though not merely with appeal to its logical coherence.

Can't you understand that any arguments in the public sector, especially with laws, must have a basis other than religious belief?

Let's make work on the Sabbath, Saturday, against the law. Why? because the Bible says so. Are you ok with that?