Evidence for God from Science

Harry12345 wrote:Conservatives are not interested in liberty. Sure, free market capitalism is good, but conservatives marry this with an unusual interests in citizens' sex lives (?). It was the conservatives who wanted to keep sodomy illegal. Moral? Perhaps. Liberty? Um... no.

If you really want liberty, vote Libertarian.

It's because it's SO MUCH HOTTER when it's illegal.

psalms55.21 wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:Conservatives are not interested in liberty. Sure, free market capitalism is good, but conservatives marry this with an unusual interests in citizens' sex lives (?). It was the conservatives who wanted to keep sodomy illegal. Moral? Perhaps. Liberty? Um... no.

If you really want liberty, vote Libertarian.

It's because it's SO MUCH HOTTER when it's illegal.

Historically when the sexually immoral pagans have power they persecute Christians. When the sexually immoral atheists have power they persecute Christians. Facism, liberal facism... both different sides of the same coin. Liberty is a concept that doesn't translate well into reality no matter who is in power.

ageofknowledge wrote:Liberty is a concept that doesn't translate well into reality no matter who is in power.

So why are conservatives so (alledgedly) interested in it?

Jac3510 wrote:We shouldn't have laws relating to greed. We should have laws relating to dishonesty. The former just means one person getting as much as they can (nothing wrong with that). The latter has to do with getting something at the expense of another. There is something wrong with that.

In any case, don't buy into the lie that greedy CEOs caused this recession. The financial is the most regulated industry in the United States. This was caused by a burst in the housing bubble, a bubble that was first caused because the government during the Clinton years (by accelerating policies that began during the Carter years) encouraged non-qualified people to buy homes they couldn't afford. Even the New York Times, hardly a conservative newspaper, predicted way back int he '90s this would happen for that reason.

So yes, we have responsibilities, but our responsibilites are to ourselves and to our families. Not to our government. It is NOT the government's job to take care of you. It is your job to take care of you. It is NOT the governments job to take care of your elderly parents. That is your job (and theirs, while they were working). The moment you ask the government to take over any such "compassionate" (please read that with the most exagerated sarcasm you can!) functions, you give up your liberties. And, contrary to your point, when you give up your liberties, you actually have no responsibilities.

Thus, the only way we can say we have any responsibility at all is if we actually have freedom. Obama and the other luny-lefties want to solve the problem of responsibility by just taking away our freedom, or put the other way, in taking away our freedom, we no longer have the responsibilities you rightly recognize.

Okay Jac, you and CS make a lot of sense but let me weigh in on this. There are a multitude of groups responsible for this recession, from the top to the very bottom. Yes the financial institutions are heavily regulated, but they are not heavily monitored or held responsible for their actions until it's too late. Can you say Bernie Madoff? Look back at Enron, Adelphia and Worldcom. Ken Lay was selling his stock, but not letting his workers sell theirs which was tied up in their retirement plans. Consequently there are people who will have to work for the rest of their lives and not be able to truly retire. Why? Dishonesty, lack of moral fiber, greed and lack of conscience. Why did we bail out AIG, GM? Politics that's why.

This all started with Jimmy Carter and his CRA, (community reinvestment act). A nice idea but poorly done. He essentially told the banks they had to make loans to people who could not or would not repay them. Bad move Jimmy, bad move. Then Clinton came along and eliminated the Glass Steagall act which separed main street from wall street. They were bundling mortgage backed securities and selling them like stock....only problem is when the bubble burst, the mortgages were not being paid and there was nothing to back the securities. Then consider that Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae were being run ineptly, banks were making loans to people for houses with inflated values. ARM's were being used to make it possible for those people to get into the housing market, the ARMs went up, people couldn't afford their mortgages, defaults happened wholesale and kaboom.

This all boils down to greed, lack of business morals and government interference. Socialism is next. I hope not but I see it coming.

W

It wasn't the greed, W. As I pointed out already, it was the dishonesty, and to boil down your points to the single factor there, the politics. The sad truth is that we have really and truly well meaning people who want to force others to provide services that they wouldn't have to in a free market. I don't take Clinton or Carter to be evil people. They just don't understand reality. We have people on this board who are like that. They think the best way to solve social or moral problems is to force you and me, by the power of the gun (which is what a government mandate is) to take care of and provide for others in one form or fashion.

Sounds nice and Utopian, but it doesn't work. It underestimates the human condition. Why work hard if you are effectively being paid not to? Because its the "right" thing to do? Please. People who have that mentality have more faith in humanity than I do, and history, unfortunately, is on my side.

This recession wasn't caused by greed. It was caused by dishonest politicians who bought their way into power by promising to steal from one group and give it to another. That creates an artificial market that WILL burst, and when it does, it all comes crashing down. The same thing is happening again now, only this time, the next crash will be the dollar itself. It likely won't be an overnight crash like this one, but a steady, irreversible slide into oblivion, and when that happens, the US will become a beggar nation and our children will lose their freedom, all because people have this aberrant mentality.

Conservatism isn't about big vs. small government. It is about right vs. wrong. To force someone to provide a service for you--whether it is in housing or healthcare--is theft. No society can survive on that. Look beyond the politics. We are bankrupt, and we are only adding to our debt. The game is over. We've drowned ourselves in our own greed--not the greed of Madoff, but the greed of kindly old next door neighbor who insists that you be a good citizen and help pay for his heart medicine. It isn't enough for you to share as your parents taught you. He will send the government to take what he wants from you, and now that there's no one left to take anything from, we're borrowing it from other countries, all while demanding more and more and more and more and more.

Better what the eye sees than the roving of the appetite. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. (Eccl. 6:9, NIV)

Not all of us are. Neo-conservatives certainly can be I've noticed; however, many of us independent conservatives are not.

Harry12345 wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:Liberty is a concept that doesn't translate well into reality no matter who is in power.

So why are conservatives so (alledgedly) interested in it?

Most conservatives in the United States are Christians and they want the liberty to practice their belief system without being persecuted. While both conservatives and today's New Left inspired modern liberals seek to use government as a means to project their respective ideologies, the conservatives (unlike the modern liberals) believe they can accomplish liberty simply by minimizing the size and role of government in their lives. Modern liberals, on the other hand, desire a large sweeping authoritarian government that enforces their ideology through rule of law and resulting enforcement force that follows.

Jac3510 wrote:

Conservatism isn't about big vs. small government. It is about right vs. wrong.

I disagree. Conservative parties from different nations have differing opinions on abortion, gay rights, women's rights etc. but they all pretty much agree on free-market economics and other monetary policies, so I've concluded conservatism is about small government, at least when it comes to economics. Also, you didn't reply to my earlier post, Jac.

ageofknowledge wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:Liberty is a concept that doesn't translate well into reality no matter who is in power.

So why are conservatives so (alledgedly) interested in it?

Most conservatives in the United States are Christians and they want the liberty to practice their belief system without being persecuted. While both conservatives and today's New Left inspired modern liberals seek to use government as a means to project their respective ideologies, the conservatives (unlike the modern liberals) believe they can accomplish liberty simply by minimizing the size and role of government in their lives. Modern liberals, on the other hand, desire a large sweeping authoritarian government that enforces their ideology through rule of law and resulting enforcement force that follows.

I don't disagree. However, I do think liberty translates into reality.

It certainly can and sometimes does. Historically, it has been a real struggle though which is why I said it doesn't translate into reality well.. meaning easily or well enough.

I disagree. Conservative parties from different nations have differing opinions on abortion, gay rights, women's rights etc. but they all pretty much agree on free-market economics and other monetary policies, so I've concluded conservatism is about small government, at least when it comes to economics. Also, you didn't reply to my earlier post, Jac.

Of course you disagree, and you do so for the very reason I didn't reply to your last comment. You and I have a fundamentally different view of government. Still less am I interested in arguing about labels (libertarian vs. conservative vs. whatever). If you want to label me non-conservative because I don't hold to your libertarianism, the be my guest. Words cannot express my apathy towards that argument.

Getting past labels, I stand by my argument. The issue isn't big vs. small government. It's right vs. wrong. The reason conservatives are opposed to big government is that it is fundamentally wrong. If you want to rip the moral moorings out from under conservative philosophy, be my guest, and enjoy the sea of relativism you're left with. As for me (and, I'd argue, the Founding Fathers), the nature of government is a moral issue. High taxes aren't wrong because they have bad economic impact, though they do. They are wrong because they are nothing more than state sponsored theft, and the limit my ability to do with my income as I so choose, limiting my ability to glorify God with the product of my work. Universal healthcare isn't wrong because it hurts the economy or even limits my freedom. It's wrong because it is theft, and it provides a mechanism by which greedy people can exploit one another for their own personal gain.

Now, I don't do political debates. There was a time I did, and I've come to believe in the futility of it all. I state my opinion, and and may clarify it; but once someone disagrees with me, then that's the end of the discussion. If you want to find somebody to debate politics with, find someone who is interested in politics. What I do discuss as it relates to politics is only to the extent that it is based on objective moral principles. Once you reject that, you've entered into a world I'm not interested in. And hey, good for you on that! Somebody has to do that. They write blogs about it, and some make their living talking about it. I'm just glad it isn't me.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:

I disagree. Conservative parties from different nations have differing opinions on abortion, gay rights, women's rights etc. but they all pretty much agree on free-market economics and other monetary policies, so I've concluded conservatism is about small government, at least when it comes to economics. Also, you didn't reply to my earlier post, Jac.

Of course you disagree, and you do so for the very reason I didn't reply to your last comment. You and I have a fundamentally different view of government. Still less am I interested in arguing about labels (libertarian vs. conservative vs. whatever). If you want to label me non-conservative because I don't hold to your libertarianism, the be my guest. Words cannot express my apathy towards that argument.

Getting past labels, I stand by my argument. The issue isn't big vs. small government. It's right vs. wrong. The reason conservatives are opposed to big government is that it is fundamentally wrong. If you want to rip the moral moorings out from under conservative philosophy, be my guest, and enjoy the sea of relativism you're left with. As for me (and, I'd argue, the Founding Fathers), the nature of government is a moral issue. High taxes aren't wrong because they have bad economic impact, though they do. They are wrong because they are nothing more than state sponsored theft, and the limit my ability to do with my income as I so choose, limiting my ability to glorify God with the product of my work. Universal healthcare isn't wrong because it hurts the economy or even limits my freedom. It's wrong because it is theft, and it provides a mechanism by which greedy people can exploit one another for their own personal gain.

Now, I don't do political debates. There was a time I did, and I've come to believe in the futility of it all. I state my opinion, and and may clarify it; but once someone disagrees with me, then that's the end of the discussion. If you want to find somebody to debate politics with, find someone who is interested in politics. What I do discuss as it relates to politics is only to the extent that it is based on objective moral principles. Once you reject that, you've entered into a world I'm not interested in. And hey, good for you on that! Somebody has to do that. They write blogs about it, and some make their living talking about it. I'm just glad it isn't me.

God bless

Ok fair enough. God bless!

I went to a Christians Helping Our World meeting recently. A wide range of views are represented at these from Christians who are Democrats concerned about the environment, society, the needy, etc... to those that are independent and try to qualify each issue and candidate rather than follow any one party line to Republicans who follow the party line to some very right wing end of the world types. It's always an experience.

Anyways, during discussing immigration a John Bircher announced that we needed to reposition our troops along the border and issue orders to kill on sight everyone (Men Women and Children) that cross the border period no exceptions. He believed this was God's will reasoning that since they were breaking the law they forfeited any rights they had and we had a perfect right to kill them all.

I countered of course explaining that it is not God's will that we engage in wholesale murder over a legal technicality and gave various reasons why it was not OK to do that including the Imago Dei argument.

Are conservatives mean? You bet they are and proud of it.

Extremist view points exist on both sides, that doesn't excuse them. But if one is to argue degrees of meanness or evil, there's inherently far more evil in killing countless defenseless babies (through legalized abortion) than shoot-to-kill orders at our boarders.

Byblos wrote:Extremist view points exist on both sides, that doesn't excuse them. But if one is to argue degrees of meanness or evil, there's inherently far more evil in killing countless defenseless babies (through legalized abortion) than shoot-to-kill orders at our boarders.

I agree, but I'd rather do neither.

Yikes, I don't think many Republicans subscribe to this view!

Harry12345 wrote:

Byblos wrote:Extremist view points exist on both sides, that doesn't excuse them. But if one is to argue degrees of meanness or evil, there's inherently far more evil in killing countless defenseless babies (through legalized abortion) than shoot-to-kill orders at our boarders.

I agree, but I'd rather do neither.

Yikes, I don't think many Republicans subscribe to this view!

I'm certainly not condoning it in any way, just making an analogy.