<p>@dontno:</p>
<p>However, it is surprising to see how much more reluctant people are to criticize you for holding socially conservative rules if you are appealing to a religion other than Christianity.</p>
<p>Exactly, it stems from the perception that other cultures should be respected but obviously not our own.</p>
<p>
[quote]
" People don't take your arguments seriously because you holding them is, primarily, founded on your religious beliefs. "
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually ppl just insult those who hold conservative views. You have no idea about the logic behind conservativism, for every single law in the Bible all about 432 of them I found personally went through and thought why God would make it a law and can a logical reason for each one. So please spare me the whole "it is based on faith" trash, because you reallly don't know what you are talking about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it is surprising to see how much more reluctant people are to criticize you for holding socially conservative rules if you are appealing to a religion other than Christianity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. Liberals cherish multiculturalism so much that the majority culture actually becomes secondary to any other one. You ever hear anyone criticize Orthodox Jews for being fundamentalist? (As an atheist, I think the bashing of Christian lunacy is just as justified as denigrating Jewish or Muslim or Hindu lunacy.) </p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually ppl just insult those who hold conservative views.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. I have many conservative views (I'll give another one more in line with Christian morality: advocating for the nuclear family as the primary childhood environment). I rarely am insulted upon informing someone of these views. </p>
<p>
[quote]
for every single law in the Bible all about 432 of them I found personally went through and thought why God would make it a law and can a logical reason for each one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First, in just the Old Testament, there are 613 commandments I believe (including the first ten). Second, you don't actually expect me to believe that you went through the entire Bible. Anyone who has read the entire Bible should assuredly be an atheist (half-joking, half-serious). Third, there are a ton of laws contained in the Bible that have absolutely no logical foundation whatsoever. Here's a few:</p>
<p>Bible</a> Babble - The Laws of the Bible</p>
<p>My favorites:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>err... dontdo?</p>
<p>You just dismantled your entire argument.</p>
<p>and dontdo, mind explaining Leviticus in the Modern 2009 U.S.?</p>
<p>It's dontno.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You just dismantled your entire argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Clarify please? My argument is that most Biblical laws have no logical foundation. DBate stated he's read the entire Bible and "thought why God would make it a law and can [give] a logical reason for each one."</p>
<p>The two I quoted have no logical foundation and many in the link provided are downright horrible. Leviticus has no place in modern society, yet many use it as a justification for hating homosexuals. And they're actually consistent because the Bible is claimed to be the Word of God, so one can't just pick and choose what one believes in (also the justificaiton for creationism).</p>
<p>I don't see how I "dismantled my entire argument". I have a feeling you misread my posts or confused mine with DBate's posts.</p>
<p>This should help answer the OP's question:</p>
<p>Nassau</a> Research</p>
<p>You're economically liberal? What are you, some sort of communist? Economic liberalism is a root cause of much of the suffering in the world. Viva el capitalismo! Also, social conservative? So you jerk off to Leave it to Beaver and the social order of the 50's? I hate you.</p>
<p>Leviticus 25:44-46, explain.</p>
<p>^ Gotta go with Beef on this one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On a more serious note, I have noticed alot that when I mention I am socially conservative people instantly insult me. I have never done the same when a person expouses a liberal viewpoint
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, here's the thing.</p>
<p>"Socially conservative" essentially means "anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage." I won't touch abortion, but opposing gay marriage pretty much makes you a dick. There's just no good reason for it at all.</p>
<p>PS: Beef Supreme, you rock.</p>
<p>aren't liberals supposed to be open-minded? Dbate isn't here to denigrate anyone's beliefs, just because he's a Christian and a conservative, doesn't mean you have to bash his belief system because it doesn't fall in line with yours...i thought that was the reason a lot of people hated organized religion, if you're fine with gay marriage, then you should be fine with other points of view as well</p>
<p>I'm not bashing DBate's belief system. I was originally giving a reason why some might be insulting when informed of his social conservatism; namely that it's religiously based. He responded by stating that Christian morality, as described in the Bible, has a logical foundation. In fact, he stated he's read the entire Bible and can provide a logical reason for each Biblical law.</p>
<p>I was responding directly to this statement and used specific Bible quotes as evidence against this supposition. He has yet to respond.</p>
<p>And FYI: I'm not a liberal. I have some socially conservative views (in regards to the two most hot button, I'm pro-choice and apathetic about gay marriage), but I'm an also an atheist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This one is really easy, it has the same rationale behind it as the commandment not to grow two different seeds in the same field. It is the establishment of purity, the commandments in Leviticus were unique to the state of Israel as such every function was to the command by God to show that the Israelite people were pure. This was a physical representation of that fact.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not to insult you, but the fact that you are posting this shows the if you have read The Bible you did not study it within context of function nor of the state of Israel at the time, nor of the Biblical transition of grace. </p>
<p>The commandment was for the time before grace came through Christ The Lord, under Old Testament law people did not go to Hell they went to Sheoul, as such there was no punishment for transgressions after death so the body was punished on earth. After Christ came, He was the first to enter into Hell and as such paid the price for all the souls who had been killed physically on earth regardless of religion.
Logically it would seem unjust to allow all those murderers and such to just enter into Hell, so Christ bore thier punishment. </p>
<p>Did you ever stop to think why we don't kill people of different religions anymore? It is because grace came unto the world through the Blood of grace. Because of this grace there is no right for physical punishment on earth. </p>
<p>On the physical level it was a method of protecting the purity of the Israelite people, other religions threatened the system of government that The Lord had established, to inject other religions into the nation (as was later done) brought the wrath of The Lord upon Israel (remember this is the period before grace), so they had to ensure that sin was purged from thier mist.</p>
<p>You really mean Deuteronomy 17:3, Deuteronomy 17:2 is: If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"First, in just the Old Testament, there are 613 commandments I believe (including the first ten). Second, you don't actually expect me to believe that you went through the entire Bible. Anyone who has read the entire Bible should assuredly be an atheist (half-joking, half-serious). "
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No I have not read the entire Bible, but I did read all the laws and sat down and thought through them as opposed to just dismissing them, besides this is my faith so for me it matters alot more. I did mess up the actual number, but that is because there are so many.
Perhaps the people that have read The Bible and become athiests are the ones who fail to understand the historical context and spiritual implications of what is written. There are several Bibles that have historical commentary to place the writings in context if you wanted to read it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
""Socially conservative" essentially means "anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage." I won't touch abortion, but opposing gay marriage pretty much makes you a dick. There's just no good reason for it at all."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No it doesn't make me that at all. I have no objection to homosexuals recieving all of the same legal benefits of straight couples, which is the arguement most used. But marriage is distinct from legality as marriage is recongnition before God, although in modern times law has become intertwined with marriage, a historical context shows that marriage was seperated from any legal implications for quite sometime. As such there is no reason that marriage should be the moniker for the relationship. I support Hillary Clinton's position of civil unions, because then all the legal rights are transferred but the nuclear family model is still entact.</p>
<p>But the real reason that people want "gay marriage" is because it neccessarily suggestst an equitablity between a hetrosexual couple and a gay couple and the two are not equal. Two men will never be able to produce a child naturally and as such can never be equal to the relatioship between a man and a woman.</p>
<p>And in responding to people's beliefs could you refrain from personal attacks. It just really is counter productive to actual discussion.</p>
<p>@Dontno, i didn't respond because I have been at a debate tourney for the last three days, I qualified for the national tournament in Exempt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But marriage is distinct from legality as marriage is recongnition before God, although in modern times law has become intertwined with marriage, a historical context shows that marriage was seperated from any legal implications for quite sometime.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry, I'm a Christian too but I don't think my religion owns the whole "marriage" thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Two men will never be able to produce a child naturally and as such can never be equal to the relatioship between a man and a woman.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So Dbate says that infertile heterosexual couples should be denied the right to marriage too. Okay.</p>
<p>^^No the actually recongintion of marriage from a Christian perspective occurs through intercourse v-a-g-i-n-a-l (I think CC doesn't allow that word to be typed). So even if the couple is infertile they are still recongnized as married. This is why Catherine could legally marry Henry VIII in England, bc she said she had not consummated the marriage with her fromer husband and so therefore their marriage was not reconginzed by God and not reconizged by the Catholic Church. </p>
<p>It is sad that people don't teach history with context of religions that influence them, because then alot of the misunderstandings that arise in the modern world would be avoided.</p>
<p>Oh and God in the marriage of history could just as easily be seen as an amalgam, I mean Hindu marriage, muslim, what have you all involve reconginition of a higher power as was the norm for about every civilization.</p>
<p>^ what's wrong with being socially conservative?</p>
<p>i would consider myself more conservative than liberal but its because i grew up in a pretty dominant conservative enviroment. So im looking forward to good debates and actually hearing the other side</p>
<p>I find it funny how so often on these forums ppl just bash conservatism, but when actually engaged in a non-emotional debate ppl just choose not to respond. I guess it is easier to call someone a "bigot" than to actually refute thier points.</p>