As there are seven heavenly virtues (Chastity, Temperance, Charity, Diligence, Patience, Kindness, Humility) perhaps we can also decide upon seven virtues of the intellect. Thus far we have Faith, Conservatism…
Your list seems short.
Is jealousy a virtue or a vice?
Is god being un-virtuous when he says he is a jealous god?
As to your O.P.
Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.
Faith is a way to quit using, “God given” power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.
The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]
How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?
Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the believers mind as it is pure idol worship.
Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.
Regards
DL
As long as those thing are all used together. Yes.
Even Conservatives have their faults, and nobody but Jesus Christ is perfect.
Conservatives and Liberals (as opposed to Leftists) have different approaches, and no one approach solves the entire problem. For example, the Conservative perspective is to teach and train people so that poverty may be avoided. The Liberal approach is to help all that meet the definition of poor no matter if their poverty could have been avoided or even if they could pull themselves up out of poverty. The Liberal perspective is well intentioned, but it does not motivate. The Conservative perspective is well intentioned, but some also fall through the cracks. Conservatives and Liberals together could possibly construct something positive to help prevent poverty and to also catch those who fall through any cracks. Both sides allow themselves to be distracted by Leftists, and we have to put these people on ignore.
1 Like
It would be if the left didn’t control the schools.
Bootstraps seems to be the sum total of conservative lessons on poverty.
It’s certainly not to teach and train. It’s “you’re on your own”
JayJay
89
How is there no logic behind believing life existing on other planets?
JayJay
90
Literally none of what you posted here is true.
1 Like
That’s just ignorant. However did our country grow for hundreds of years completely without you compassionate liberals to care for them? 
The conservative view is not for the government to play a large role in education.
Yes exactly, but you took that position out of context. Not having the government educate our children is not even close to not teaching and training people to avoid poverty. The fact that it is inconceivable to you that something OTHER than government run schools can actually teach people ( and teach them better) is very telling of your own dependence on your benevolent big brother.
1 Like
That’s not a conservative position. It’s not exclusive to be liberal and believe people should be taught to get out of poverty. You do realize many liberals want to help poor people pay for school?
The ONLY distinction is that conservatives don’t want government involved.
So, I believe you are the one taking things out of context.
It’s like saying “people who are hungry should be fed” is only a liberal position. You agree right?
Well, nowhere did I say that but okay.
Here’s her statement and your response. She said “teach and train people so that POVERTY MAY BE AVOIDED.” Which you denied. Then you said the conservative position is " you’re on your own" then “bootstraps seems to be the sum total of conservative lessons on poverty”, then you say to me “It’s not exclusive to be liberal and believe people should be taught to get out of poverty.”
You know the big difference between conservatives and liberals? Meri said " so that poverty may be avoided" you said " taught to get out…" Conservatives, mostly through Christian teaching at home, (which USED to be reinforced at school), is the biggest factor in teaching people to avoid poverty, and most other of societies problems too. Liberals don’t address the root cause of societies problems ( in fact they actively promote the reasons for the problems), they only address problems AFTER the fact, usually by creating some kind of government program which does nothing but create more dependence on government.
Meanwhile, they’re clueless as to why problems never get better. Political correctness prevents them from using common sense, making any kind of judgements, or establishing absolute rules, standards or morals and holding people accountable when those rules, standards and morals are broken.
Conservatives understand there is a God, who sets the rules, standards and morals and there is a price to pay, often at a societal level when God is ignored.
Yes, Jesus certainly advocated helping people who, as Meri put it " fall through the cracks." Government can play a role in that. But Jesus also made it clear that people are expected to work for their daily bread, and if they don’t work, " neither should they eat." You liberals, by ignoring God, leave that last part out.
Yes, faith is a virtue of intellect. They go together. Fear of God is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. Without faith, you just have feckless liberalism, which has NEVER raised anyone out of misery.
1 Like
She said that in juxtaposition to “liberal” positions. I denied it was a “conservative” position, because such beliefs aren’t exclusive to conservatives.
Spare me your weak semantics. Many people are born into poverty and the way to avoid it in the future is through education.
Just because you are poor doesn’t mean you don’t work. I’m pretty sure Jesus said something about judging and looking down on fellow humans.
How can a poor person get out of poverty quicker? Let’s say a woman.
- Go to school and get a good education.
- Don’t get pregnant before you graduate. Meaning don’t have sex or make sure your guy wears a condom.
- Get a good job, and save some money.
- Get married.
-
Then have a kid.
Yet the poor seem to do it ass-backwards. They don’t get an education, they get pregnant in high school and most drop out.
With no education all they can do is menial jobs like McDonalds. Jobs that weren’t meant to pay enough to raise a family but rather to give people work experience. (And half the money they earn goes to daycare, if they can’t saddle their mother with the kid during work hours.)
Christianity says it’s a sin to have a child out of wedlock. Our government rewards people who have children they can’t afford by putting them on welfare.
And kids learn that there’s nothing wrong with taking welfare from the govenrment. The concept that welfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a way of life, doens’t occur to them.
Small sample size but all of my uncle’s step grandkids were born out of wedlock. One stepson had several kids by several different women, in between stints in jail for drug use. His being a worthless individual didn’t stop the women from having unprotected sex, getting pregnant, having a kid and going on welfare with no expectation of ever getting a job.
Here in Cheyenne, I’ve got a friend whose ex-girlfriend has two chlidren who are on social security and only work part time because they don’t wan to to lose their benefits. They work just enough to get the money to get their meth. And when they run out they ask my friend for money for rent, etc. and he gives it to them. He knows he’s being played but he won’t stop…
Take away welfare and institute workfare and tell girls if they get pregnant they get no welfare money, and maybe that would put a stop to it.
Or it would increase babies being left at orphanages or on church doorsteps…but that’d be better than being raised in a crack home…
