What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[Patine]

The idea that God commanded the murder of gay people has been around for a lot longer than the idea that he didn't

He did in the Torah and Quran. But Christ (and Western Conservatives and Traditionalists always CLAIM to be Christian) says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "Judge not lest ye be judged," "Love thy neighbour as you would love thyself," and "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," and NEVER once enjoins, condones, or encourages a killing, or physical harming, of anyone, for any reason. And, He doesn't ONCE mention homosexuality, expect possibly in an oblique quote whom theologians lack enough firm context to understand about "eunochs" who become so, and "eunochs" who are born such of their mother, that MAY refer to the phenomenon - but the quote is much more matter-of-factly stated than at all condemnatory. But since the majority of people today who call themselves "Christians" don't follow the Ministry of Christ at all, we cannot say, nor can they, that their tradition is even remotely Christian-based.

 

[Farm Boy]

they are post hoc after the fact thinking

Isn't that called observation and analysis? Or are the special words reserved for special people?

 

[Lexicus]

Making new decisions based on rationality is the only way forward. But it requires a certain hubris, because it requires assuming that you know enough to fiddle without making things worse. Being conservative around such a mindset is not so much hubris as being resigned to the fact that you don't know enough to make changes. But tradition creates the Baseline. And it's the Baseline of the sum of the successes. The mistake some rationalists make is thinking that the conservative rationalizations are true or accurate. They're not, they are post hoc after the fact thinking. But still, you know there is always a fundamental reason why a social institution survived successfully to where it is, even if you don't agree with the underlined story as to why

So, let's apply this thinking to the Aztec tradition of human sacrifice. Hubristic of me to assume I know that the sun will rise even if we don't disembowel a few dozen prisoners every day? Fundamental reason why the institution survived successfully to where it was?

 

[Lexicus]

But not in a way which problematises gender norms as such, which is how it is very often deployed by Western progressives.

Well, yes - was it this thread where I mentioned that I ran into someone who was under the impression that the Americas were an anarcho-communist paradise with no gender oppression etc. before the Europeans showed up? Silliness.

 

[El_Machinae]

He did in the Torah and Quran. But Christ (and Western Conservatives and Traditionalists always CLAIM to be Christian) says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "Judge not lest ye be judged," "Love thy neighbour as you would love thyself," and "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," and NEVER once enjoins, condones, or encourages a killing, or physical harming, of anyone, for any reason. And, He doesn't ONCE mention homosexuality, expect possibly in an oblique quote whom theologians lack enough firm context to understand about "eunochs" who become so, and "eunochs" who are born such of their mother, that MAY refer to the phenomenon - but the quote is much more matter-of-factly stated than at all condemnatory. But since the majority of people today who call themselves "Christians" don't follow the Ministry of Christ at all, we cannot say, nor can they, that their tradition is even remotely Christian-based.

At no point in time is Jesus quoted as saying that the Torah was lying about God. Jesus told people to love God, but he was telling people to love the god of Abraham. Oh sure, Jesus was very useful in changing the Commandments that Christians were supposed to follow. But at no point did he confront the falsehood that God had ordered the murder of gay people

 

[MaryKB]

When did God order the murder of gay people?

 

[Mouthwash]

But this is just incoherent. For cities to have emerged over long periods of time to suit people's practical and emotional needs would have required rational analysis of what the needs are and how to fulfill them.

Only on an immediate, practical level (and sometimes not even that). It allows for experimentation over long periods and is far limited in its destructiveness.

What does this even mean? Again, what is your substitute for rationality? "Tradition" is no such substitute; "tradition" and "rationality" are not the same kind of thing, not fulfilling the same kind of functions.

But we can clearly use one or the other to guide our actions.

What you really mean when you say that "tradition" works better than rationality is that unthinking submission to whatever traditions you happen to be born into works better than rationally evaluating society to try to make it better.

Not quite. There is a place for rationality in a healthy society, but it is small, localized in scale, and should always be self-conscious of its weakness.

This is so interesting! Usually in these kinds of arguments it's the conservatives claiming the mantle of rationality which has led some 'progressives' to decry rationality as something primarily benefiting straight white men. I've never seen the reverse argued.

Well, there was this thing called Marxism.

Again, this makes no sense. Remember, "tradition" here is being posited as a superior alternative to rationality. That means that "tradition" has to exclude the concept of 'experiments' entirely, because 'experimenting' requires a rational analysis of process and results.

Actually, it only requires results.

The idea that God commanded the murder of gay people has been around for a lot longer than the idea that he didn't

Given that the very concept of a gay person originates in the nineteenth century, I'd say that's false.

The mistake the conservatives make is thinking that any experimentation is going to create worse outcomes.

Almost every conservative today concedes the value of liberalism to some degree; it's the liberals who can't accept that tradition has any non-disposable value.

Do you think that the third is more or less likely than the first, given the electoral concerns of American conservatism?

This pretty well sums up my attitude towards elections.

(Also, I don't really support civil war.)

So, let's apply this thinking to the Aztec tradition of human sacrifice. Hubristic of me to assume I know that the sun will rise even if we don't disembowel a few dozen prisoners every day? Fundamental reason why the institution survived successfully to where it was?

It was adaptive in some way (note that the Greco-Roman world regularly practiced infanticide). That's why, at the end of the day, religion really is the answer.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, let's apply this thinking to the Aztec tradition of human sacrifice. Hubristic of me to assume I know that the sun will rise even if we don't disembowel a few dozen prisoners every day? Fundamental reason why the institution survived successfully to where it was?

I don't know why the institution survived, but you were specifically falling for the error that I'm warning against. Don't believe the rationalizations given by those enforcing the institution, there's no guarantee those rationalizations are true or even reasonable

 

[Patine]

At no point in time is Jesus quoted as saying that the Torah was lying about God. Jesus told people to love God, but he was telling people to love the god of Abraham. Oh sure, Jesus was very useful in changing the Commandments that Christians were supposed to follow. But at no point did he confront the falsehood that God had ordered the murder of gay people

If you follow properly, the New Covenant, that allowed Salvation to be given by UNDESERVED grace and forgiveness by God, was done by the sacrifice and death of His Son to pay the wages of sin (death) for all humanity, but also (very important - and often forgotten) to pay the blood (with Christ's Blood) for all blood ritual, blood punishment (like the horrible ones in the Torah that greatly resemble Sharia law), and bloodshed (endless wars) demanded in the Torah. That's why the Last Supper has both the Body AND the Blood of Christ.

 

[Lexicus]

But we can clearly use one or the other to guide our actions.

No, we can use rationality or we can use unthinking submission to tradition because it's there to guide our actions. Please be clear about what you're actually saying.

It was adaptive in some way (note that the Greco-Roman world regularly practiced infanticide). That's why, at the end of the day, religion really is the answer.

Well, not that you have any credibility before, but I think a willingness to defend the Aztec practice of human sacrifice will probably lead most people to conclude you aren't really worth bothering with.

I don't know why the institution survived, but you were specifically falling for the error that I'm warning against. Don't believe the rationalizations given by those enforcing the institution, there's no guarantee those rationalizations are true or even reasonable

"Don't believe the rationalizations, but coming up with your own ideas is hubristic" doesn't seem to leave me with any options.

When did God order the murder of gay people?

In Leviticus God is recorded saying to Moses:
"If a man lies with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination. They must surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

 

[El_Machinae]

When did God order the murder of gay people?

She didn't. Leviticus contains libel against God, and claims that she did. Lots of the Bible lies about God. Global flood, killing the firstborn, telling Saul to stab babies, Etc.

There's no evidence God did these things, lots of evidence people thought she did

 

[El_Machinae]

If you follow properly, the New Covenant, that allowed Salvation to be given by UNDESERVED grace and forgiveness by God, was done by the sacrifice and death of His Son to pay the wages of sin (death) for all humanity, but also (very important - and often forgotten) to pay the blood (with Christ's Blood) for all blood ritual, blood punishment (like the horrible ones in the Torah that greatly resemble Sharia law), and bloodshed (endless wars) demanded in the Torah. That's why the Last Supper has both the Body AND the Blood of Christ.

The New Covenant is loving the god that Jesus described. That's the god of Abraham. Jesus wasn't describing a real God, he was describing the god described according to the tradition of his people. If you want to be a Christian, you have to decide how you feel about the idea that God had ordered the murder of gay people. The order has been rescinded, apparently, but that doesn't change the idea that some people thought it existed in the first place.

 

[Hygro]

That's true, but in America right now there is a complete mismatch between ideals and practice regardless of tribe. I think that says a lot about which direction the causality flows.



It's preventing any sort of healing.

How is that possible? How could there being Pride prevent the healing needed to recover from the economic damage of the policies of the lawmakers who are also enemies to pride?

 

[El_Machinae]

"Don't believe the rationalizations, but coming up with your own ideas is hubristic" doesn't seem to leave me with any options.

Respecting the concern that you're being hubristic is not the same as refusing to be. Go back to my original point, I'm not saying that refusing to move forward is the right choice. I was pointing out the value of tradition.

 

[Hygro]

And mouthwash, what kind of advocate of community over atomization are you? Whenever I'm friendly to you you're dismissive.

 

[El_Machinae]

Given that the very concept of a gay person originates in the nineteenth century, I'd say that's false.

You're trapping yourself in a tautology. Sure, gay people couldn't exist before the concept existed. But people existed back then that we would now define as queer.

It's a bit like saying that Hannibal didn't kill Italians because the concept of Italy didn't exist back then. Romans? Obviously. But quibbling about that is just quibbling about definitions.

All you're pointing out is that we have tighter definitions now. Sure.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you want to be a Christian, you have to decide how you feel about the idea that God had ordered the murder of gay people.

A secondary concern, at best. People "get it wrong." But they'll do that regardless. God is God, and the book could lack those things and still be holy. But the world would still be the world for all it's current evil, and it is still holy.

 

[Traitorfish]

This pretty well sums up my attitude towards elections.

The point isn't your attitude towards elections, it's the attitude common among conservative Americans. Do you think they are more likely to keep grasping after the machinery of the state, machinery which they not only accept but celebrate, or turn away into a New Jerusalem? You've laid out this bold vision of a city on a hill, but like all revolutionaries you are running into the fundamental question: what is the mechanism by which it is brought into existence?

 

[El_Machinae]

A secondary concern, at best. People "get it wrong." But they'll do that regardless. God is God, and the book could lack those things and still be holy. But the world would still be the world for all it's current evil, and it is still holy.

I have no problem with the idea of loving God. You'll note that my objection is that people spread lies about what God said or what God has done.

 

[Patine]

The point isn't your attitude towards elections, it's the attitude common among conservative Americans. Do you think they are more likely to keep grasping after the machinery of the state, machinery which they not only accept but celebrate, or turn away into a New Jerusalem? You've laid out this bold vision of a city on a hill, but like all revolutionaries you are running into the fundamental question: what is the mechanism by which it is brought into existence?

Such "traditional, social conservative" claptrap spewed by some guy channeling H.P. Lovecraft as an avatar. I wonder if the irony is actually intentional, or one of those "pretentious edge-lords" who thinks the delivery of their message is somehow still coherent.