A view of conservatives, from a conservative

[Greater-London]

In answer to the question I have no problem with Christianity playing a part in peoples politics. Plenty of people from all over the political spectrum have faith, or have been influenced by faith and this isn't an inherently bad thing. The problem starts when you start infringing on the rights of other people and then justify it through Christianity.

I think its also noting that "real" Conservatism and Christian Conservatism are not synonymous with one and other; by definition Conservatism will continue to change and adapt (simply at a much slower rate than everyone else).

[Greater-London]

I would like to remind everyone here claiming or saying ''what atheists believe'' is false because we don't have a organized code on our views. We're all individual people having our own reasons for being a atheist. In my view, that's one of the reasons I became a atheist. I truly feel that this allows me to be me. Call me a hipster or a rebel, but I do not like the idea of submitting myself to a orthodox institution to be myself.

note me using the word feel rather then believe.

Yes, Atheists can have different moral codes and believe in different things. However you can say "What Athiests believe" in a broad sense, because despite there being no organized doctrine none of you believe in God.

[The Enclave Government]

Also, Christianity is tied to Liberals, aswell.

Note how every single U.S president has been Christian.

[The Enclave Government]

I would like to remind everyone here claiming or saying ''what atheists believe'' is false because we don't have a organized code on our views. We're all individual people having our own reasons for being a atheist. In my view, that's one of the reasons I became a atheist. I truly feel that this allows me to be me. Call me a hipster or a rebel, but I do not like the idea of submitting myself to a orthodox institution to be myself.

note me using the word feel rather then believe.

Yes, Atheists can have different moral codes and believe in different things. However you can say "What Athiests believe" in a broad sense, because despite there being no organized doctrine none of you believe in God.

We're that by definition. The person is more then just that title. Each and every one of us have our own reasons for feeling there is no higher deity. Also i'm not going after Christianity. Atheism is by definition the rejection of all deities, from Hindu gods to the Abrahamic gods to the Greek Pantheon.

[Knockturn Alley]

I would like to remind everyone here claiming or saying ''what atheists believe'' is false because we don't have a organized code on our views. We're all individual people having our own reasons for being a atheist. In my view, that's one of the reasons I became a atheist. I truly feel that this allows me to be me. Call me a hipster or a rebel, but I do not like the idea of submitting myself to a orthodox institution to be myself.

note me using the word feel rather then believe.

Yes, Atheists can have different moral codes and believe in different things. However you can say "What Athiests believe" in a broad sense, because despite there being no organized doctrine none of you believe in God.

And that's just about the only thing we do have in common

[Greater-London]

We're that by definition. The person is more then just that title. Each and every one of us have our own reasons for feeling there is no higher deity. Also i'm not going after Christianity. Atheism is by definition the rejection of all deities, from Hindu gods to the Abrahamic gods to the Greek Pantheon.

Exactly. So you can talk about what Atheists believe in or don't believe in. Atheism has a definition and you can talk about what the definition is. Whilst Atheists have differences you are all partially defined by your disbelief in God(s).

Yes a person is more than just their faith or lack thereof, but the same can be said for all groups. By your logic we can't talk about what Muslims believe because they are more than just their faith.

[Aelex]

Ok, let's put it simply. Religion has no right in politic, politic has no right in religion; so just get some laïcité and stop whinning.

[Skappola]

Christianity matters in politics. It shouldn't in some countries, but it does.

[Uxupox]

I'm a Catholic myself and also believe that religion has no place in politics. Laws should not be dictated by what the Bible, the Quran and any other religious scripture says.

[Salandriagado]

I would like to remind everyone here claiming or saying ''what atheists believe'' is false because we don't have a organized code on our views. We're all individual people having our own reasons for being a atheist. In my view, that's one of the reasons I became a atheist. I truly feel that this allows me to be me. Call me a hipster or a rebel, but I do not like the idea of submitting myself to a orthodox institution to be myself.

note me using the word feel rather then believe.

Yes, Atheists can have different moral codes and believe in different things. However you can say "What Athiests believe" in a broad sense, because despite there being no organized doctrine none of you believe in God.

That's what we don't believe. Now start on what we actually do believe.

[The Enclave Government]

Yes, Atheists can have different moral codes and believe in different things. However you can say "What Athiests believe" in a broad sense, because despite there being no organized doctrine none of you believe in God.

That's what we don't believe. Now start on what we actually do believe.

Personally I feel that there's no God, for a variety of reasons. However, for the sake of the OP, I will confine them to my rejection of the Judeo-Christian deity.

A, by their own definiton, God either either NOT fully powerful (1), or he is imperfect. (2)

Let me explain.

For number one, it is preached many times in the Bible and by Jesus himself that one who has the power to prevent a evil act, yet neglects to do so, is as evil as the evildoer himself as he could have stopped the act. The only way to explain this is to say God doesent have the capability to act. But that strikes at the core of the idea of the Judeo-Christian God who is allmighty.

For number two is also impossible, because they *also* refer to god as perfect. For God to be perfect, we run into a conundrum. He is either not fully powerful, and therefore excluded from culpability, or he is culpable for every evil act in human history.

[Gigaverse]

I expected a sensible OP about conservatism. I didn't expect entire incomprehensible tl;dr style (note: I did read) paragraphs about Christianity.

Your title is misleading, OP.

[Christainville]

That's what we don't believe. Now start on what we actually do believe.

Personally I feel that there's no God, for a variety of reasons. However, for the sake of the OP, I will confine them to my rejection of the Judeo-Christian deity.

A, by their own definiton, God either either NOT fully powerful (1), or he is imperfect. (2)

Let me explain.

For number one, it is preached many times in the Bible and by Jesus himself that one who has the power to prevent a evil act, yet neglects to do so, is as evil as the evildoer himself as he could have stopped the act. The only way to explain this is to say God doesent have the capability to act. But that strikes at the core of the idea of the Judeo-Christian God who is allmighty.

For number two is also impossible, because they *also* refer to god as perfect. For God to be perfect, we run into a conundrum. He is either not fully powerful, and therefore excluded from culpability, or he is culpable for every evil act in human history.

Well, okay, good points. Yet, I want to add to them. Satan, the guy we see as the master of evil, was once a angle named Lucifer. He served under God, but wanted to be God, which got him kicked out, reason is in the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not have any other gods before me. So, with this in mind, indirectly, a creation of God, became evil, making evil a part of the creation. It why in the garden of eden, Adam and Eve were kicked out. It was in the knowledge, and understanding of sin, that they lost their purity in the way God made them. He knew if they had to deal with temptation, with sin, at some time they would give in, and that the price of that was death. Yet, they took of the fruit, and saw the full view of the world, which is why one of their first acts was to cover themselves with leaves, because they now felt embarrassment, shame, other feelings that as long as they stayed in God, they would not have to deal with. God knew this, could He have changed this, could He have prevented them from doing this, yes; but it would break His promise of man having free will and the right to chose. He made man different from the animals, the ability to not follow a order, to think for him self with out a already made thought line, and to chose what side he would be on. So, God is all powerful, he can do anything, and he is all pure; but He also knows there is more then just that purity, and He doesn't want people to follow him out of being forced, but from the heart, so He made that choice open. He didn't want us to experience the bad parts of this, but if He didn't let us chose the bad parts, it would break His promise of us having a free will. So, free will, gives us a choice, and our choices can bring bad consequences. Yet, He promised us that choice, and its for us to chose it.

So, sorry about my over use of pronouns, but that's the best way to explain that.

[Grave_n_idle]

I wanted to talk on a few thing as a Christian and conservative, that currently are things I see going on daily.

1st off, separation of church and state is used and abused by both sides. In political talks, I hear a lot of more left leaning people say instead of doing dumb things like protesting over abortion and what not, why wont Christians solve world issues, like hunger and what not. Well, for the record, some do, but they are hated because they are religious, Christian, in nature, which then makes them old world and un effective, so they want to provide a result that the world demands but wont let them give, so in a sense how can they do anything? Now, even as a conservative, I don't want faith being the whole base of politics. Faith should be a choice, not forced. Its just, even atheists, have a faith. they have a faith there is no god, as we have a faith God leads us through out life. So, we all have a faith in one way or another, ours just became the realization that there is more out there then just us. So, what does that have to do with church and state? Why would a Texas mayor order pastors give over sermons if this old world system had no power? If this church was fake and could do nothing, why would people demand separation of church and state, which leads to my second point.

2nd. Most Christians and conservatives are not scared, and do not have a phobia of Islam. One thing I notice, because we don't accept something, people equate it with a fear, but then when other people don't accept something, its a civil right? Well, I wont lie, there are some people that miss represent Christians and conservatives. Its just, in a 21st century world, where women's rights is a huge political topic, we also take up for a culture that endorses the beating of women that are raped. So, do we accept what's behind to move forward? This is just one version of how we move forward but bring what's behind us with it and call it a future. Its not that I or any other conservative is scared of a Islamic person, its just we cant over look the bad things that are happening, the same as I can say with some people that call themselves "Christians" but have a hard time actually showing the love and compassion Christ commanded. Yet, does the love and compassion demand that you over look things that are wrong, things that are dangerous, things that cause issues? Nope, but you should reprimand in love of another person, and not in hate, and that's the things so many have failed at.

3rd and my final thing. This one will get me in a lot of trouble with the more liberal side of politics. Civil rights didn't come from man, because if they did, nothing would be civil. If we legislate morality, you push people to do the opposite, but do you over look un moral actions, nope. Through out history, what was defined as civil was ever changing, is that what we would want in our nations, in our cities? To have a ever changing format of what's right and wrong, what acceptable, to only have freedom and justice if your on the side of the political party that won the most recently election. A example of this is the recent Indiana bill, using religious freedom, discrimination occurs, and that's what religion should not be used for. My question is, do we become so secular and so accepting, that we block out groups and views that can do good, but because of the name we don't allow them to do anything? We allowed Islam into the 21st century with out changing a lot, all I ask is that Christians be allowed the same with out chaining their faith to meet the current political views. Because, in the end, what good is faith if every other person determines it, except a unchanging standard that is the headline for what you believe in. That's why for me, Christianity and conservative ideas, will never be split. Its true, their are liberal Christians, and some liberal ideas work fine, make a good economy, make a good place to live in. Yet, its the idea of non-chaining standards, morals that help some one live a good life, and the belief that by doing this, we make things better in the hope for a brighter future. And for me, that should actually be conservatism.

I know the more liberal side will hate everything I wrote her probably, but hey, I want a honest discussion, a honest view, pull apart what I said, if its the truth, it should stand firm. So, my question is, the things I wrote down, should that be real conservatism, should it be accepted, in a 21st century world should Christianity play a part? Lets have a honest discussion, and lets try to keep it civil with out a lot of cursing and what not.

You seem to think a lot of your post is going to 'get you in trouble'... I think you're over-valuing your opinions, to be honest.

A lot of the things you've written are mere opinion, or demonstrably wrong. You 'don't get in trouble' for saying things that are silly or wrong - although you will get challenged.

Regarding the 'fear' comment you made, though - you should listen to rightwing rhetoric, especially around elections. The amount of politicians and political commentators talking about how the 'leftwing' (such as it is in the US) was going to literally destroy America (which, somehow, didn't happen) was ridiculous.

In fact, that kind of crap is a big part of why I have stopped referring to myself as conservative.

[Grave_n_idle]

Personally I feel that there's no God, for a variety of reasons. However, for the sake of the OP, I will confine them to my rejection of the Judeo-Christian deity.

A, by their own definiton, God either either NOT fully powerful (1), or he is imperfect. (2)

Let me explain.

For number one, it is preached many times in the Bible and by Jesus himself that one who has the power to prevent a evil act, yet neglects to do so, is as evil as the evildoer himself as he could have stopped the act. The only way to explain this is to say God doesent have the capability to act. But that strikes at the core of the idea of the Judeo-Christian God who is allmighty.

For number two is also impossible, because they *also* refer to god as perfect. For God to be perfect, we run into a conundrum. He is either not fully powerful, and therefore excluded from culpability, or he is culpable for every evil act in human history.

Well, okay, good points. Yet, I want to add to them. Satan, the guy we see as the master of evil, was once a angle named Lucifer. He served under God, but wanted to be God, which got him kicked out, reason is in the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not have any other gods before me.

Your theology about satan and lucifer (two different entities) is flawed and non-scriptural.

[Christainville]

I expected a sensible OP about conservatism. I didn't expect entire incomprehensible tl;dr style (note: I did read) paragraphs about Christianity.

Your title is misleading, OP.

Actually not, if you understand conservatives. A lot of us are Christian, and see how we view faith and political ideals in a similar light.

[Christainville]

Well, okay, good points. Yet, I want to add to them. Satan, the guy we see as the master of evil, was once a angle named Lucifer. He served under God, but wanted to be God, which got him kicked out, reason is in the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not have any other gods before me.

Your theology about satan and lucifer (two different entities) is flawed and non-scriptural.

Please elaborate?

[Sanctissima]

Yes, Atheists can have different moral codes and believe in different things. However you can say "What Athiests believe" in a broad sense, because despite there being no organized doctrine none of you believe in God.

That's what we don't believe. Now start on what we actually do believe.

Well, that's kind of the thing about Atheism.

The only thing all atheists have universally in common is that:
1) They don't believe in a deity.
2) They don't believe in anything spiritual (afterlife, souls, etc.)

The entire premise of the faith is not believing in something, rather than believing in it. Sure, most atheists believe in evolution and the big bang theory, but those aren't aspects of atheism. They're aspects of science, and science is not the same thing as atheism.

[The Enclave Government]

Personally I feel that there's no God, for a variety of reasons. However, for the sake of the OP, I will confine them to my rejection of the Judeo-Christian deity.

A, by their own definiton, God either either NOT fully powerful (1), or he is imperfect. (2)

Let me explain.

For number one, it is preached many times in the Bible and by Jesus himself that one who has the power to prevent a evil act, yet neglects to do so, is as evil as the evildoer himself as he could have stopped the act. The only way to explain this is to say God doesent have the capability to act. But that strikes at the core of the idea of the Judeo-Christian God who is allmighty.

For number two is also impossible, because they *also* refer to god as perfect. For God to be perfect, we run into a conundrum. He is either not fully powerful, and therefore excluded from culpability, or he is culpable for every evil act in human history.

Well, okay, good points. Yet, I want to add to them. Satan, the guy we see as the master of evil, was once a angle named Lucifer. He served under God, but wanted to be God, which got him kicked out, reason is in the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not have any other gods before me. So, with this in mind, indirectly, a creation of God, became evil, making evil a part of the creation. It why in the garden of eden, Adam and Eve were kicked out. It was in the knowledge, and understanding of sin, that they lost their purity in the way God made them. He knew if they had to deal with temptation, with sin, at some time they would give in, and that the price of that was death. Yet, they took of the fruit, and saw the full view of the world, which is why one of their first acts was to cover themselves with leaves, because they now felt embarrassment, shame, other feelings that as long as they stayed in God, they would not have to deal with. God knew this, could He have changed this, could He have prevented them from doing this, yes; but it would break His promise of man having free will and the right to chose. He made man different from the animals, the ability to not follow a order, to think for him self with out a already made thought line, and to chose what side he would be on. So, God is all powerful, he can do anything, and he is all pure; but He also knows there is more then just that purity, and He doesn't want people to follow him out of being forced, but from the heart, so He made that choice open. He didn't want us to experience the bad parts of this, but if He didn't let us chose the bad parts, it would break His promise of us having a free will. So, free will, gives us a choice, and our choices can bring bad consequences. Yet, He promised us that choice, and its for us to chose it.

So, sorry about my over use of pronouns, but that's the best way to explain that.

Jesus didnt mention a promise overrote the moral compass between evil and not evil.

I'm sorry, but if you fail to atleast account that God can be objectively seen for his purported actions, there is no real point debating his existence.

Don't bring in the ''fallible message'' from Jesus and the disciples. Jesus was the son of god and, by his account, sits with him in the Kingdom of God. Jesus had direct contact to God, so his message is pure as possible without god sending it himself.

[Dakini]

Its just, in a 21st century world, where women's rights is a huge political topic, we also take up for a culture that endorses the beating of women that are raped.

What the fuck does this have to do with your previous sentence? Why is this not in a separate paragraph if you're moving on to a new topic.

So, do we accept what's behind to move forward?

What does this even mean?

This is just one version of how we move forward but bring what's behind us with it and call it a future.

What?

What the fuck is this? Learn to quote properly please.

Well, look at it. Most times conservatives are called old world, or that we don't move forward, any number of things that would tie us to a old mindset of thinking. At the same time Islam is considered conservative, and practice a lot of things that we wouldn't see as alright under human right laws and what not, but they are still accepted as a part of it. So, do their human rights violations and actions, and ways of life stop anyone from accepting them into the 21st century world? In a very liberal, progressive world, that has a goal of taking a select old world system with them? Its interesting because they way they do things is the opposite of what progressives would see as progress would accept as being modern. Now, if I said this about a Christian, then we can outlaw, and say bad thing, and do what ever; if it was Islam, we just need to progress them and bring them into the 21st century. Also, anyone against this now has a mental issue called Islamaphobic.

Nobody has suggested that Muslims should be allowed to treat women like shit. Nobody has suggested that telling Muslims they have to treat women like people in a way that secular societies deem acceptable is Islamophobic. Additionally, it's not like Islam has a monopoly on treating women like shit given the tendency for conservatives and Christians to do much the same and encourage this very same behaviour. Acting like it's only Islam or only Muslims who are sexist or like they are inherently so (or more sexist than other extreme religious or conservative groups) is definitely Islamophobic.

So, that's what I meant by that.

You didn't say it especially clearly in the first place and your second attempt wasn't much of an improvement. I suggest that you organize your thoughts a little before you write.

[Christainville]

Well, okay, good points. Yet, I want to add to them. Satan, the guy we see as the master of evil, was once a angle named Lucifer. He served under God, but wanted to be God, which got him kicked out, reason is in the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not have any other gods before me. So, with this in mind, indirectly, a creation of God, became evil, making evil a part of the creation. It why in the garden of eden, Adam and Eve were kicked out. It was in the knowledge, and understanding of sin, that they lost their purity in the way God made them. He knew if they had to deal with temptation, with sin, at some time they would give in, and that the price of that was death. Yet, they took of the fruit, and saw the full view of the world, which is why one of their first acts was to cover themselves with leaves, because they now felt embarrassment, shame, other feelings that as long as they stayed in God, they would not have to deal with. God knew this, could He have changed this, could He have prevented them from doing this, yes; but it would break His promise of man having free will and the right to chose. He made man different from the animals, the ability to not follow a order, to think for him self with out a already made thought line, and to chose what side he would be on. So, God is all powerful, he can do anything, and he is all pure; but He also knows there is more then just that purity, and He doesn't want people to follow him out of being forced, but from the heart, so He made that choice open. He didn't want us to experience the bad parts of this, but if He didn't let us chose the bad parts, it would break His promise of us having a free will. So, free will, gives us a choice, and our choices can bring bad consequences. Yet, He promised us that choice, and its for us to chose it.

So, sorry about my over use of pronouns, but that's the best way to explain that.

Jesus didnt mention a promise overrote the moral compass between evil and not evil.

I'm sorry, but if you fail to atleast account that God can be objectively seen for his purported actions, there is no real point debating his existence.

Don't bring in the ''fallible message'' from Jesus and the disciples. Jesus was the son of god and, by his account, sits with him in the Kingdom of God. Jesus had direct contact to God, so his message is pure as possible without god sending it himself.

Your right. I can go through the whole Bible and really wonder why God would this, how this could be a part of God. Yet, at the same time, I think we can all say its something we could think or do, and then we look at how we do other things and what we say, and wonder how it could be a part of us. So, if we were all judge by our actions, judged by everything we have said, thought, or done; we all would have at lest one thing that's out of our character or out of what we would want to be.

[Sanctissima]

Well, okay, good points. Yet, I want to add to them. Satan, the guy we see as the master of evil, was once a angle named Lucifer. He served under God, but wanted to be God, which got him kicked out, reason is in the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not have any other gods before me. So, with this in mind, indirectly, a creation of God, became evil, making evil a part of the creation. It why in the garden of eden, Adam and Eve were kicked out. It was in the knowledge, and understanding of sin, that they lost their purity in the way God made them. He knew if they had to deal with temptation, with sin, at some time they would give in, and that the price of that was death. Yet, they took of the fruit, and saw the full view of the world, which is why one of their first acts was to cover themselves with leaves, because they now felt embarrassment, shame, other feelings that as long as they stayed in God, they would not have to deal with. God knew this, could He have changed this, could He have prevented them from doing this, yes; but it would break His promise of man having free will and the right to chose. He made man different from the animals, the ability to not follow a order, to think for him self with out a already made thought line, and to chose what side he would be on. So, God is all powerful, he can do anything, and he is all pure; but He also knows there is more then just that purity, and He doesn't want people to follow him out of being forced, but from the heart, so He made that choice open. He didn't want us to experience the bad parts of this, but if He didn't let us chose the bad parts, it would break His promise of us having a free will. So, free will, gives us a choice, and our choices can bring bad consequences. Yet, He promised us that choice, and its for us to chose it.

So, sorry about my over use of pronouns, but that's the best way to explain that.

Jesus didnt mention a promise overrote the moral compass between evil and not evil.

I'm sorry, but if you fail to atleast account that God can be objectively seen for his purported actions, there is no real point debating his existence.

Don't bring in the ''fallible message'' from Jesus and the disciples. Jesus was the son of god and, by his account, sits with him in the Kingdom of God. Jesus had direct contact to God, so his message is pure as possible without god sending it himself.

Actually, Christianity has the habit of making this nebulous connection between Jesus and God (basically, if you believe in the Trinity, Jesus was an aspect of God). So, according to scripture, Jesus sort of was God.

Doesn't get much more direct a contact than that.

[Christainville]

What the fuck is this? Learn to quote properly please.


I didn't want to use your whole post, as it would combine the section I was responding to with the rest, so to outline the specific part I did it that way.

[Sun Wukong]

It would be nice if conservatives could go even a paragraph without lying about and insulting their enemies.

well, its a honest claim. Atheists do have a faith, because its a faith that their is no god. That simple.

And simply wrong.

Is faith such a terrible thing to you that you feel the need to force it on to your enemies?

[Dakini]

I didn't want to use your whole post, as it would combine the section I was responding to with the rest, so to outline the specific part I did it that way.

Yeah, so you just cut parts out of a post that you want to respond to while leaving the quote tags intact. Here, I've demonstrated this technique on your post where you still fail at quoting. See how I've gotten rid of the stuff you "quoted" from my post?

It's easy.