Is Free Republic becoming increasingly hostile towards Social Conservatives?

self ^ | self

[watsonfellow]

In the past few months I have noticed that the posters on Free Republic have become more and more hostile towards social conservatism.

And I do not mean indifference (less pro life threads etc) but an outright hostility at pro life and other social conservative causes.

Am I alone in thinking this?

In particular, notice the responses to the thread concerning the recent request by social conservative groups to the FCC to reign in Fox's racey primetime programs.

I wonder if this is becoming only a haven for hedonists and libertarians, and if so, perhaps it would be better for social conservatives to find their own site.

[The Green Goblin]

Furthermore, the children had to be killed because they would grow up to be just like their wicked parents,

Oh, that makes sense. Aborting babies is ok since many of them will grow up to be wicked anyway. I'm sure some of those mudered Columbine students would have grown up to be wicked, so it was ok to kill them too. Every adult will be wicked to some degree, so let's kill all those babies right now, eh?

[AUgrad]

Would God provide His Word if He didn't give us the ability to understand the true meaning of it? That doesn't make sense, now does it? Clearly, scriptural truths are spiritual discerned and without the spirit you cannot know the truth (1cor 2:14). Clearly not all denominations can be correct.

Now THAT'S a cognizant argument. Many churches teach devine influence. If you read scripture and seek God's will then the meaning should be clear. Each person has his own unique set of problems and experiences and different outlooks on the world. I believe God knows this and speaks to each heart as he sees fit. I believe almost any action can be considered a sin if it damages your fellowship with God. If I go hunting on Sunday and miss church, that's a sin(IMO). If I go hunting on Saturday and still do my duty as a father and husband ,that's not a sin. My point is, things aren't as easily defined as you imply they are.

[The Green Goblin]

YOu are a relativist so you can't declare anyone's moral system to be wrong or invalid without contradicting yourself Mr. relativist, which you continue to do (see the previous exchange). You can only avoid self-contradiction by just shutting up on the topic. You lost the debate.

I'll shut up when you explain to me how rape can be considered unequivocally morally wrong, when God sometimes approves of such behavior.

[The Green Goblin]

You continue to misrepresent my position by accusing me of believing that everything is relative. I do not belive such a thing, but only that morality is relative. Such a belief does not cut me off from logic as you assert. Thus, you are erecting a strawman argument.

[eno_]

So are we getting an object lesson why states have no business establishing religion. Moreover, while one man's rightious intolerance of evil is another man's bigotry, the state has no business getting near to either point of view, and should keeps its laws within the bounds of preserving our liberty to pursue these divergent courses.

[spunkets]

" I have proven from your Bible that God is as morally subjective as anyone else (rape is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong).

God always considers rape morally wrong. God teaches and explains Himself in the Gospels. Anything found elsewhere in the Bible that stands in contradiction to what God Himself says there, is from men, not God. Rape is always a rights violation, w/o justification, in God's eyes.

[The Green Goblin]

exactly

[The Green Goblin]

Not so. The argument I put forth in post #632 clearly demonstrates that God approved of rape in the cases mentioned.

[gjenkins]

"And all I've done is rip your moral system to shreds using simple irrefutable logic."

You should take your irrefutable logic show on the road. People will get a kick out of it.

[spunkets]

"First of all, in some passages God seems to tacitly sanction rape. In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves (Num. 31: 18)." God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Num. 31: 25-27). "

Here's what God says about this:

Mark 10:4-5
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.

So God tells them directly, that Moses and the other prophets gave commands that were, not from God, but from men. He gives the reason for that here also. It was, because of the hardness of their hearts.

God's moral code is objective and the same code can be uncovered by men. It is because they are in the image and likeness of God. The objectivity of the code is found in the nature of man and of God, because both are of the same likeness.

[The Green Goblin]

If God were morally absolute as you contend then he would have not allowed Moses (his representative) to give such laws. God did not rebuke Moses for advocating sin, so God remains morally relative, just as he was when he winked on polygamy etc. Your argument actually serves to further prove my point.

[dcwusmc]

Hey, nimrod, where in HERE:
You're in rare form tonight, telling JimRob who he ought to allow in HIS house. But then that's you... morality at gunpoint as long as YOU hold the gun. Thanks but no thanks. We have had way too much of that. It's time to restore our Constitution as the supreme law of the land instead of toilet paper as both Left and Right seem to want.
BTW, while homosexuality is abhorrent to me, as long as it's kept private and out of my sight, it's not my business. Its proponents may NOT thrust it in my face or they stand to lose something real personal. No one should have ANY special protective legislation for any reason. The (local, NOT federal) laws against crime in general should suffice for ALL citizens and legal residents.
604 posted on 2/7/02 9:40 PM Pacific by dcwusmc
did I say ONE WORD about drugs? Are you HIGH? Wouldn't surprise me. A friend of mine from a long time back had been married to a cop in Atlanta and said that when the cops partied they had the best drugs in town, all over the party venue, plates and plates of stuff. Maybe that's why YOU're such a WODDER. Free drugs AND free cash. Hmmmmmmm.

[exmarine]

I've already taken it on the road. I've yet to have it refuted. Would you like to try pal?

[exmarine]

Now THAT'S a cognizant argument. Many churches teach devine influence. If you read scripture and seek God's will then the meaning should be clear. Each person has his own unique set of problems and experiences and different outlooks on the world. I believe God knows this and speaks to each heart as he sees fit. I believe almost any action can be considered a sin if it damages your fellowship with God. If I go hunting on Sunday and miss church, that's a sin(IMO). If I go hunting on Saturday and still do my duty as a father and husband ,that's not a sin. My point is, things aren't as easily defined as you imply they are.

Clearly, anything prohibited by scripture is a sin, including any one of the 10 commandments as a start. There is nothing gray or vague about these. Be very careful about asserting a subjective interpretation. God's laws mean the same regardless of your circumstances.

[spunkets]

"If God were morally absolute as you contend then he would have not allowed Moses (his representative) to give such laws.

No man represents God. Just as God has a Free will, all men have a Free will. There is no way anyone can have a Free will, if there is another being sovereign over that will. Individual sovereignty of will is an essential essence of God, just as it is man.

The fundamental feature of God's moral code is that sovereignty of will is inviolate. God did not rebuke Moses, because to do so, would violate His own code. God absolutely respects the sovereignty of will of those in this world. He teaches, but He does not force.

[exmarine]

You continue to misrepresent my position by accusing me of believing that everything is relative. I do not belive such a thing, but only that morality is relative. Such a belief does not cut me off from logic as you assert. Thus, you are erecting a strawman argument.

No, you misrepresent your own position. You clearly stated that you believed in subjective morals - that makes you a relativist pal. And I demonstrated that your moral system is bogus. Don't make me repost what you wrote to prove it. This is my last post as this thread is out of control and too long.

[The Green Goblin]

He fundamental feature of God's moral code is that sovereignty of will is inviolate. God did not rebuke Moses, because to do so, would violate His own code.

Hardly. God rebuked Moses plenty of times for many different things, as when he was once almost killed by God, and then when he was not allowed to enter the Promised Land. The Bible is filled with moral relativism coming directly from God himself

[The Green Goblin]

You clearly stated that you believed in subjective morals - that makes you a relativist pal.

Wrong. It makes me a moral relativist, not a general relativist. Thanks for playing.

[gjenkins]

"I've yet to have it refuted."

I certainly have never seen you admit that you were wrong ... not that anyone around here does that much. I have witnessed you being refuted.