The Future of Social Conservatism

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you're forgetting that Jesus Christ predicted the moral decay of the last days and used the publically accepted sin of homosexuality in Lot's day as his example:

"As it was in the days of Lot, even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed" (Luke 17:29-30)

Or do you think it is merely purely coincidental that Lot was publically jeered for rejecting the vile passions of his day?

So, yes, we understand the trend and where it will end.  And we don't see the rejection of our message as a failure on our part, rather we understand it's just the way of the world and we understand the world also rejected the message of Christ.

So, we'll continue to fight the good fight, so that in the end we will be able to stand in the day of his reappearance.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you're forgetting that Jesus Christ predicted the moral decay of the last days and used the publically accepted sin of homosexuality in Lot's day as his example:

"As it was in the days of Lot, even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed" (Luke 17:29-30)

Or do you think it is merely purely coincidental that Lot was publically jeered for rejecting the vile passions of his day?

So, yes, we understand the trend and where it will end.  And we don't see the rejection of our message as a failure on our part, rather we understand it's just the way of the world and we understand the world also rejected the message of Christ.

So, we'll continue to fight the good fight, so that in the end we will be able to stand in the day of his reappearance.

yes, I know truth is alien to you...but are you questioning the premise that it will become publically acceptable?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes.  But we'd also have to have rampant incest and a lack of hospitality in order it to be fully "days of Lot."  I guess that's West Virginia's contribution to the end days.

A big problem with your theory is we have this entire planet.  Even if homosexuality becomes publicly acceptable in the United States, we aren't "in the days of Lot" until it reaches that level in Uganda and Peru and Singapore and every other nook and corner of the planet.   It's not publicly acceptable on Earth and might not be for several more centuries.

I agree that it has to be more widespread than just in America (which it already is - just look at what is going on in Europe and South America)....but to say it must be uniform throughout the world is taking the analogy way too far.

But I am not saying we have currently reached the point which is portrayed in the analogy, but we are moving in that direction rather quickly.  And if the prophesy is correct, we will continue to move in that direction.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, basically you’re saying that we will lose this battle politically but not to worry about it.

yeah....as for the doctinal stuff, you probably need to open a thread on the religious board, else I will be infracted.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Social conservatism by definition can't die. The issues that are "socially conservative" will just change.

well, what exactly comes next after homosexuality and the killing of babies...bestiality and necrophilia?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Social conservatism by definition can't die. The issues that are "socially conservative" will just change.

well, what exactly comes next...bestiality, necrophilia?

Surely you can see the difference in consensual sexual activity between two adults and sexual activity between an adult and a horse or a dead body.

what if the dead person gave his consent before he died...is it then ok in your eyes?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If it was explicitly in his/her will... and there was no public safety concern... sure.

huh?  what's he gonna do, come back to life and demand his rights?!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If it was explicitly in his/her will... and there was no public safety concern... sure.

huh?  what's he gonna do, come back to life and demand his rights?!

I meant something like keeping the body around in your home.

Please tell me you're Van Der Blub and this isn't a real discussion...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If it was explicitly in his/her will... and there was no public safety concern... sure.

huh?  what's he gonna do, come back to life and demand his rights?!

I meant something like keeping the body around in your home.

Please tell me you're Van Der Blub and this isn't a real discussion...

You started it.

I'm not the one defending necrophilia, Blub

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It does seem that in the last century the traditional/social conservatives are running out of things to protect us from. They have already lost the battles on alcohol, porn, comic books, violent games/tv/movies, interracial marriage, birth control, sex education, homosexuality as crime, abortion, prayer in schools and even gambling (somewhat). 

don't know who you've been hanging around, but I've only been in favor of outlawing abortion...in fact, I don't want gay marriage to be illegal, I just dont want to condone it by having the state recognize it (there are a lot of things that are legal yet are not recognized by the state).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

basically, there is a difference between social conservatism that attempts to legislate morality (eg outlaw homosexuality), and social conservatism that attempts to protect the rights of others (eg the unborn).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It takes a very strange idea of ethics to look at the past with its epic wars, slavery, disregard for the legal rights of women, etc and declare that we are in some sort of moral decay because two gay men want the same legal rights as everybody else. I can't figure out nutters.

yeah, there are some nutters who believe just because people were wrong in the past, we shouldnt stand up for morality today.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which makes you incredibly foolish. It makes you man who cannot reflect on what he believes, less that belief is challenged and you are conflicted. There is no reason for someone to form an opinion and remain unchanged in it despite who he meets, what he learns and what he understands. If that conflicts your entire belief system, then you should immediately question it.

are you trying to say it is foolish for someone to espouse their belief in something (eg. Christianity) and also choose to follow those beliefs as they are prescribed by the definitive works (eg. Bible)?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No. He appeared to be talking about a personal belief system, some of which are perhaps influenced by his faith.

ok, I'll take your word for it since you probably read his post and I didn't....but I'm not so sure I see the difference between my personal belief system and my faith.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

One big thing that this thread has mentioned in passing is the entire future of the Social Issues in regards to advances in technology. As people become more and more fearful of "the singularity", with such stuff as cloning, life extension, stem cells, robots, sex bots and AI in general, it really does much to redefine social conservatism (besides changing the way people live, it does relate quite a bit with abortion) as being the force that maintains the human existence in a way we currently understand it...

...and that's the problem with social conservatism- you simply cannot stop tomorrow from coming.

the future can not retroactively redefine basic morals, you only think it can because you're using strawmen examples like "social conservatives used to think the earth was the center or the universe" when in fact the bible never came close to saying such a thing, and even today, science doesn't know where the center of the universe is for it hasn't even been able to determine the boundaries of the universe or even if such boundaries exist.

to say that in the future, abortion will be accepted by anyone who accepts science, as if science can disconnect the universal connection between a mother and the baby within her womb, is extremely arrogant and unscientific and only demonstrates that your own conscience has be seared

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

...the rationale for sex being reproduction is largely invariant

Anyone who needs a 'rationale' for sex has my sympathies.  Whatever happened to you poor TJ?

well, if there was never a need for a "rationale", then some of us wouldn't have to pay others to engage in it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Which makes Romans (and it's worth pointing out the old adage that I don't actually 'lie with men as with women' as it involves a completely different set of plumbing and I can't lie 'as with women' as I have no sexual attraction to them so cannot make such a comparison) a bit odd and demonstrates a God that doesn't really know what he's doing; he sets in motion development which leads to millions of years of procreative reproductive sex including same sex acts and partnerships (and partnerships do exist in their base form in the animal kingdom) and then goes 'Whoops, scratch that, didn't mean it humans...' which makes it so obviously an artificial human ordained law as opposed to anything remotely theistic.

color me shocked!



Andrew, I owe you an apology, for I never thought you would be man enough to admit to what Romans was saying...but after 7 long years, hundreds of posts, scores of threads, and dozens of infractions... you finally proved me wrong about you...of course, you had me thrown into isolation for a month in the meantime, but hey...what is all of that between a couple of old chums...