Prophets are hard to come by these days

todays christians, conservatives, americans etc often mean well.

doesn't make them right.

 

I'm sorry that I cant respond to your most recent post, since I have left this discussion.

However, If I could respond to it I would just say:

Conservatives are also called (and 'rightly' so) traditionalists, since their foundations are based on thousands of years of proven history and thus based on successful societies, while minimizing the pitfalls that have taken great empires down---lost morality, hedonism, ramped entitlement societies, weak militaries, etc. It, however, must be 'tempered' with some progressivism to correct certain inequalities and improve the advancement of overall society.

An analogy of Conservatives & Liberals is: Conservatives are like the responsible adults in the room; whereas, Liberals are the rebellious teenagers that want to run amuck.

America was founded on religious freedom by those escaping tyranny, and by those seeking a moral society. Whereas, Australia was founded as a land of penal colonies of law breakers, criminals, etc.

If YOU cant see the difference in the founding values of the two, it is YOU who has the problem...

And BTW, 'Right' as a label assigned to the 'right wing' is also appropriate, and is similarly backed up by the OT scripture, Ecclesiastes 10:2 ""The heart of the WISE inclines to the RIGHT, but the heart of the FOOL to the LEFT."

Sorry, but I couldnt resist one last parting shot, er I mean, 'comment'.......

 

The problem with traditionalist thinking is obvious though.

It was the traditionalists who resisted interracial marriage, the liberal who wished to pursue it.

It was the traditionalists who resisted granting minorities the rights of the white man, the liberals wished to equalize all races.

It is now the traditionalists who wish to deny homosexuals equal rights.

Blind commitment to tradition, supposed morals, etc, is hardly a stance worthy of praise.

 

It helps to read and correctly quote the applicable portion of my post that addresses your 'blinders on' comments:

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you merely missed it, and are fair-minded, and a seeker of the 'whole' truth.

You're welcome....

 

Oh, sorry for veering off topic, but it kinda 'evolved' and so the forum atheists should be understanding of that....which I see as an 'adaptation' of prophesy, end times, and the main Liberal thought contribution to that end time mind-set of those on the earth for that time period....with respect, sorry, OP

Looks like the forum is having probs this morning..so Hasta Lombago....

 

It is liberal thinking that is responsible for the change in traditionalists views.

 

Progressivism if used in conjunction with Classical Liberalism (now called Libertarianism), but not the perversion known today as Modern Liberalism, has some part in the success of the American Republic & the traditional principles upon which it was founded.

I will assign its part in the overall formula as follows:

Conservatism (95%) + Progressivism(5%) = American Republic Ideals (100%)


[My final comment to respond to your post, and with respect to the OP]

 

There's nothing weird about so-called modern liberalism. The tricks that conservatives use to attack it have changed, but it has not itself changed much.

it's almost impossible to comment beyond this because one thing I have noticed is that self-professed conservatives 1) rarely try to outline the actual content of conservatism and 2) whine that "you will never understand conservatism."

If that's true, it's your own fault for using the term conservatism as if everybody automaticlaly know what you're talking about. In fact, I would argue that this is conservatism in a nutshell: the assumption that we all agree. But I could be mostly wrong because conservatives are so loathe to fill me in but would just prefer to tell me how wrong I am.

 

the hallmark of american advancement was progressiveness, not conservatism.

WRT left and right - there is a whole history in many cultures regarding this.

however, we should remember that without a left as well as a right, we would just go round in circles.

 

Back on the OP topic:

St. Mike is correct in his posting of "no need for 'NEW' NT prophesy." Altho it is 1 of the 5-fold ministry mentioned in EPHESIANS 4:11-13 (apostles, evangelists, pastors, teachers, prophets), the role of the prophet today is to but interpret previous prophecy and MUST be in line with the word of God, and NOT contrary to! And to determine the accuracy of that interpretation and any expounding on such, the word of God must be used to discern the validity, and that it is NOT just out of the spirit of a man (no matter how well-meaning he is). In the OT, false prophets were told to be 'stoned' as for falsely speaking for God. But in the NT, that commandment is not given, for judgement of the false prophet & teachers will be withheld until the final White Throne Judgement, where scripture states: if they falsely mislead the heirs of salvation, they will incur a 'stricter judgement; and, it would be better for them if a mill stone was hung around their neck and they be thrown into the ocean (my para's).

There are many false prophets in the world today, some well meaning in their intentions..but, speaking as for God' and contrary to the scriptures, is a form of blasphemy.



A Followup Sidebar: To give a quick response to "what is Conservatism," it is simply: natural (God ordained) liberty w/o tyranny (individual freedoms, free from Govt statism) and honoring the natural (again, God ordained) respect for life, marriage (originally, a God ordained contract), and the Judeo-Christian values as also ordained by God.

I do realize, personally, that abortion is not always black & white, and that their often is a fine line between doing what is right for the baby vs. what is right for the mother; however, using strictly as a form of birth control is 100% wrong. However, impeding the joining of egg & sperm, and the resultant infusion of a 'spirit' by God (it takes all 3 to make a human baby) thru birth control (as also practicing the rythm method does so) is acceptable.

And altho the divinely given contract and covenant of 'marriage' was originally God's plan for a couple of the opposite sex, in our Republic it has been assigned a legal license and must therefore be available to all within the Republic. I personally am for just a legal contract for Gays, but must concede to Gay marriage as equal citizens of this nation.

Just a few of my comments concerning Conservatism as I see it today in this nation which is a Republic of ALL the ppl.......

 

It is possible to be conservative and atheist.

Any political belief that requires theocratic beliefs is certainly a ideology worth avoiding. At all costs.

 

Again, a temporary sidebar to the OP:

To be labeled as a "Conservative" (big "C"), and if an atheist is Fiscally conservative, but NOT Socially conservative, then they most likely are Not such.

Since atheists do not acknowledge the revealed will of God concerning His absolute moral values, but practice secular humanism and their relative values, the only group of atheists (who are in reality most likely agnostics) who might qualify as actual Conservatives most likely were raised with Judeo-Christian values which have been ingrained within them per their upbringing.

Many of the fiscally-Con/Socially-Libs are now accepted as being Libertarian in general; whereas, with the exception of the afore mentioned group of atheists, my observation has been that hard-core atheists are by their natures drawn to modern Liberalism....


And one's deeply held moral beliefs go beyond playing just religious games on Sunday, and are indeed part of them as a person. So separating those beliefs from politics would be but a form of hypocrisy..

 

Doesn't Hal Lindsey claim to be a prophet...???

 

This is all irrelvant due to the fact there is not an "atheist doctrine" that demands that atheists adopt progressive point of view. Whether or not the majority of group X is a or b is completely irrelevant and meaningless.

My point is, it is possible to deny the super natural and still have socially and economic views that are conservative in nature.

If a political belief requires a particular religious belief, that they is an ideology worth avoiding and monitoring.

 

[Since your questions arent being quickly satisfied by my 'sidebar' comments, I suggest that you start a separate thread on your concerns so that you dont continually divert from the OP topic and thereby dont trample on this members thread...]

 

Altho prophets are part of the NT 5-fold ministry, and me having been 'around the horn' and met/listened to many 'self-proclaimed' prophets, I have met none that really impress me to date as such. I have gleamed some additional insight on various interpretations of scripture, but ppl like Hal Lindsey who focus so much on the Rapture (still a controversial subject with only a few scriptures to support such, as ppl flying out of their cars is implied, etc.) are preaching speculation as fact. But with good intentions, I'm sure. Many preachers justify their words/methods saying that 'it stimulates ppl's faith to receive from God." I disagree with their 'well-meaning' motives that I see as disingenuous...

 

Good post.... I agree.

 

Oh, Oh...I'd better go back over that post with a fine-toothed comb, and with corrections forthcoming...