I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here, Albion.
I've tried to put it properly before, but I do know that this is hard to both explain and--for others--to appreciate. So here goes another attempt.
What is a conservative? By definition, he is one who conserves. He does not reject what has been accepted for ages (and is important enough to consider conserving, e.g. the Constitution or redwoods or old cathedrals and castles, not necessarily paint with lead in it or steel beer cans). If one isn't into preserving something of value, he can't be a conservative, plain and simple.
When it comes to truth, it gets harder to explain to people. To say that you are going to stand by the Bible is fine, that's conservative by nature, BUT if you put a new twist on it, how does that amount to preserving the Bible? Well, it doesn't. We aren't talking about preserving the pages of the Book, you know, it's about perpetuating the beliefs based upon those scriptures.
So, let's take an example. Mr. Smith here who calls himself a conservative because he says he believes in the Bible, argues that it teaches that Jesus was not God incarnate.
IS THAT A CONSERVATIVE ANSWER OR NOT? We don't care if Mr. Smith is a Conservative on every other issue; is this particular POV conservative?
How would one know? Well, we could have a big argument with some people trying to use some verses to prove the deity of Jesus, facing off against Smith's supporters.
But that isn't going to show who is conservative and who is not, or which argument is conservative or which is not. This would only show who is right about the nature of Christ.
The conservative position is clear cut. There is no doubt. There is really no arguing it, although people will.
But you may say (because plenty of other have) that either side taking the conservative view since they say that they are basing what they say on the Bible.
Yes, but what they say about the Bible's meaning makes the difference. The one who sides with what the Christians of almost 2000 years, almost without exception, have said...is the conservative in this debate, like it or not. That side is conserving a position; the other is rejecting it. As concerns "conservative or not," there is no question who is on the conservative side, even if new evidence like the Dead Sea scrolls or whatever may have been found, whatever.
So if there is no some reference in our Wiki to things "traditionally" believed, by whatever words we get at this, there can be no frame of reference for having a forum dedicated to what this one by name says it is dedicated to or all about.
Now, this doesn't mean that every old idea has to be maintained. It doesn't mean that the Catholic idea of a stream of doctrinal consensus equalling the the Bible, called "Holy Tradition," is what we are talking about.
But it means that what has been valued and believed about God and his word through history is the conservative side.
Are Mormons conservative?
Are Jehovah's Witnesses conservative?
Are Moonies conservative?
All of them use the Bible....and if I have read once on this forum that this is all that is required to be a conservative (because saying you DON'T believe the Bible is all that these folks want to use as the test), I have read it a dozen times.
Yet obviously, none of them believes the Bible in the way that Christianity almost to a man did before they came among less than 200 years ago.
So you tell me.
But Albion, you don't want to permit this kind of examination, right?
I just wrote that I did. I'm not sure why you are reluctant to believe me.
However, it may relate to thinking that if it is a traditional belief, I have to stand by it in order to be a conservative. Not exactly that. It can't just be CLAIMED as traditional. I was saying that it is often the case that what is said to be traditional is not. In that case, if one could show that it is not a consensus --as goth AV1611's and Simon's wording was getting at--it wouldn't meet the tradition test.
If I say, for example, that believing that the Virgin Mary was born without sin is a traditional belief, ergo the believer says he's conservative here, you could prove the proposition wrong. While that view was the standard for many centuries, it has not been the consensus of Christians since the Reformation, has it? And you could probably also show, with less ease, that it wasn't the faith of the Apostolic Church. So what? Well, that would show that perpetuating the idea is not to defend traditional beliefs at all, only ONE stream of thought. A proponent of the idea that Mary was born with sin just like everyone else is just as conservative. (Of course, both will be pointing to different Bible verses, so we're back to the foolish idea that if the Bible is cited at all, the argument must be conservative).
I think I'm caught up now!
