Stupid is as stupid does and stupidity votes Obama

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not a disciple of Schleiermacher. I prefer Barth far more and consider myself more neo-Orthodox than "Liberal" per se.

I believe in the continued revelation of God. It is not my fault that you do not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit.

I'm a student of Kierkegaard. I've expressed my preference for his theology before, and his believe that the text itself is inspired and ought to be treated as the final word on theological disputes. My major disagreement with Barth is his elevation of the will and conscience over that of Scripture itself.

For me - the authority cannot come from within - it has to be external, either from the Fathers of the Church or from Scripture. Again, this is because I'm skeptical of the reliability of reason which is something that Kierkegaard touches on. We want something that can hold ourselves up, because we cannot rely on our own temptations.

[Ben Kenobi]

And on the subject, I think we can think of many folk who may be considered "conservative" (or on that arc) but don't care for loyalty, authority, or sanctity. Ayn Rand comes immediately to mind.

Excellent point. This is why Conservatives are not Libertarians. While they can agree on things - conservatives usually default to deference to authority - the reliability and the ability to obtain useful knowledge through faith and the virtue of obedience. Stuff that libertarians will rather violently oppose.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My major disagreement with Barth is his elevation of the will and conscience over that of Scripture itself.

Will and conscience as a result of further revelations from God. Not merely whims, NOR is it internal - as it comes from God, who is external.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth

From Barth's perspective, liberalism, as understood in the sense of the 19th century with Friedrich Schleiermacher and Hegel as its leading exponents and not necessarily expressed in any particular political ideology, is the divinization of human thinking. This, to him, inevitably leads one or more philosophical concepts to become the false God, thus attempting to block the true voice of the living God. This, in turn, leads to the captivity of theology by human ideology. In Barth's theology, he emphasizes again and again that human concepts of any kind, breadth or narrowness quite beside the point, can never be considered as identical to God's revelation. In this aspect, Scripture is also written human language, which bears witness to the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Scripture cannot be considered as identical to God's self-revelation, which is properly only Jesus Christ. However, in his freedom and love, God truly reveals himself through human language and concepts, with a view toward their necessity in reaching fallen humanity. Thus Barth claims that Christ is truly presented in Scripture and the preaching of the church, echoing a stand expressed in his native Swiss Reformed Church's Helvetic Confession of the 16th century.

It is interesting you cite "Fathers of the Church" because it seems like you are quite happy with their 'internal authority' (as you see it) but only theirs - are you among those who believe God turned off the spigot after the first 100 years?

[Asher]

Excellent point. This is why Conservatives are not Libertarians. While they can agree on things - conservatives usually default to deference to authority

They do that because they are simple-minded idiots who don't like to think.

That's exactly why right-wing radio is so popular. It's pretty darn close to a mental disorder.

[Jaguar]

People who are proud of "thinking for themselves" are the sorts who walk out of intro Economics at Harvard because it's "biased," reject the "official story" of 9-11, simultaneously believe that Princess Diana both faked her death and was murdered, get snippy when people tell them to learn new things from classic literature, or concoct elaborate theories about schools they don't go to without any proof.

I sometimes think for myself, but I also sometimes defer to the knowledge of experts, first. I'm sorry I'm not as smart as you are.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I find, in my experience, that EVERYONE defers to some authority on some level. It's just different authorities for different people.

[Hauldren Collider]

To me, the observation in favor of conservatism is that most systems and traditions are in place for a reason, and that reason was probably good at the time, and probably still is now, and that changing them is not likely to actually make things better. It's not always the case, of course--this is not a blanket statement. It seems to me that liberals tend to operate from the reverse hypothesis--if it's old, it's inherently archaic, and we need to change it.

[Hauldren Collider]

I find, in my experience, that EVERYONE defers to some authority on some level. It's just different authorities for different people.

From this perspective, Oerdin is extremely conservative.

And MrFun is the most reactionary person on the site.

[Jaguar]

MrFun is certainly not a radical. There is an important qualitative difference between him, and, say, Fake Boris.

[Asher]

People who are proud of "thinking for themselves" are the sorts who walk out of intro Economics at Harvard because it's "biased," reject the "official story" of 9-11, simultaneously believe that Princess Diana both faked her death and was murdered, get snippy when people tell them to learn new things from classic literature, or concoct elaborate theories about schools they don't go to without any proof.

I sometimes think for myself, but I also sometimes defer to the knowledge of experts, first. I'm sorry I'm not as smart as you are.

Don't worry -- it's not your fault.

Everyone defers at some point. The difference is the dingbats who listen to talk radio and parrot the opinions (about half the people in this thread).

[Lorizael]

To me, the observation in favor of conservatism is that most systems and traditions are in place for a reason, and that reason was probably good at the time, and probably still is now, and that changing them is not likely to actually make things better. It's not always the case, of course--this is not a blanket statement. It seems to me that liberals tend to operate from the reverse hypothesis--if it's old, it's inherently archaic, and we need to change it.

As someone who generally falls on the liberal side of things, I can tell you that this is not my attitude. My stance is that old traditions are often allowed to continue simply because they are traditions, and that as long as society is not "perfect" (whatever your definition of perfect may be, even definitions that suggest perfection is impossible to achieve/perfect is merely the best we can do), we should examine our traditions to see if they can be improved upon. This is the key for me: we cannot let things go unexamined.

[Asher]

To me, the observation in favor of conservatism is that most systems and traditions are in place for a reason, and that reason was probably good at the time, and probably still is now, and that changing them is not likely to actually make things better.

Yeah, it's been all downhill since the industrial revolution and especially since computers came to pass.

The world is a rapidly changing place. Hop on board or get out of the ****ing way.

[Jaguar]

Don't worry -- it's not your fault.

Everyone defers at some point. The difference is the dingbats who listen to talk radio and parrot the opinions (about half the people in this thread).

I'm from the smart half. Right? Right?

[Asher]

I've no idea, you seldom contribute anything important to threads.

[Jaguar]

I've no idea, you seldom contribute anything important to threads.

Said the person whose last post was a brave defense against the encroaching tide of Luddism?