How does one side have all the truth?

Thing is, nobody here has said you can't take a stand. Again; reading something that is not there.
It's about attitude.
The attitude that one has such a lock on truth that you can treat the other person as stupid (e.g. OP quote), and then paint a broad picture of them, such as trying to destroy all standards and not allow the other side to take a stand. That's sort of what I see being done the other way, as simply voicing disagreement makes one a destroyer of standards, tool of Satan, etc. That means it's basically wrong to take a stand on their views.

You speak of something being "obvious", so that's why I used the example of gravity. Also, the Word of God, where at least we have a written testimony from God. And certain political issues that might touch directly upon biblical teaching. The rest of these issues just seem like one human self-interest versus another.
Absolute standard is based on God, not man. When man argues over his own standards or interests, then it IS relative (and prone to error), and mutual tolerance is called for. And yes, it's picked apart, because no man has the right to paint a broad "conclusion" and dictate that it is from God, and above any scrutiny. (Counting on its passionate and rhetorical force to convince many, as has been working in this country for at least 30 years). If it's really from God, it can stand the scruntiny. If not, then, it's another human pretense attempted to be passed off as truth.

Yes, a reborn state may inform a person's views in the things of God, but the person is still imperfect, and still has the old nature inside which can creep up and skew things. He doesn't automatically become a perfect representative of God's ways. This has to be kept in mind. Again, in issues that seem to be all self-interest and little about God, I don't see how anyone can claim to be taking a stand for God.

That's what the pattern looks like. A person's fleshy self-interest is perceived to be threatened, and then they lash out at others seen as representing the threat. That's a natural sinful human reaction, not a reborn reaction, though reborn people can fall into it. God hardly even enters the picture, but the people insist they are arguing God's truth. That's the key. It's not just a liberal relativizing the truth, it's conservatives not making sure what they are calling truth is really from God; just assuming and asserting it. So why should anybody accept it as truth when people can clearly see their limited humanity as much as anyone else?

Or again, as I asked in the OP, is it some sort of special election kind of thing, where God soveriengly makes some people ideologically perfect, so that everything they say is automatically right? That seems to be what a lot of people's attitudes are; especially if any disagreement constitutes satanic "rejection of truth" or whatever, and they deserve to be "rebuked" with accusations or pejoratives.

 

So because you take the biblical position on more clear issues, then you are automatically "more likely" to be right on the less clear issues. OK, I guess this answers some of the question.
But I see that as a very faulty line of reasoning. Haven't you heard that a little cyanide in a glass of water poisons the whole thing? (And that's assuming the belief system in question is even that percentage correct!)

What I have been pointing out DOES have everything to do with the topic. Again, I'm seeing a lot of self-interest in these debates, and little Biblical validation of it. So it doesn't look like any solid foundation to me. It doesn't automatically become God's truth just because you might be on the "right side" of a couple of moral or theological issues. The Pharisees were right about the worship of the true God, and the Law. Yet they were wrong about Christ, and thought their "grounding" in the Law proved them right in every other area.
That is not how we determine truth.

Yes, I admit I end up supporting nothing and challenging everything. I had said I was better at making observations than trying to implement anything. Like Poncho, I see all the sides before me as basically the same thing. It's just that some of the rhetoric coming from the Right, which encompasses most Christians (which I align with spiritually) I see serious problems with. And they're the ones using GOD's name and claiming "absolute truth", not the Left, so the left is not usually worth trying to reason with on "truth".

And while I may not know of a better way at the moment, I do know that as long as people operate under some of the misconceptions, and thinking they have to accept an ideology wholesale as "truth", I am seeing, we will not get anywhere. I see the fingers of blame heading in the totally wrong direction, so despite 30 years of conservative power, things seem to be getting worse, and ironically, to top it all off, conservatives are the ones complaining about it worse than ever.

Like this, in one of Poncho's other threads:

(I originally planned to address financial issues in the OP, but figured I'd hold off until the discussion moved around to it. It IS the main issue I am addressing regarding conservative viewpoints anyway, and one in which I can now tell you what some of my views are).

So someone is "far left" because they point out something American may have been involved.

Setting aside the need proof for or against the denial, if they did happen to be apart of the situations; then they were. What can we do about it, other than be aware, and observe its effects? They don't magically become not involved just because they are from this country. As the most powerful country in the world, it seems to make sense. Hence why I have been supporting some of Poncho's posts lately.

But it seems they always get a pass (Whether in that particular context, or in economics in general), to the point that to even suggest they are apart of a given problem is to "blame America", which is seen as always being "against" the country.
Like you and others have said before, if we blame the country, why would we ever find it worth defending? So it seems like part of the underlying philosophy is that only what is perfect is worth defending; so if we believe in something (namely our own interests and national identity), then they must be perfect or absolute truth.

Again, this touches upon what I said above (to show it's still on topic), regarding your method of determining truth. It's all or nothing when determining the truth on a particular side. One side must be all right, and we have to stand completely behind it on all points, and then ignore or excuse what doesn't fit into this "all right" frame. It's always the liberals' fault, never conservatives or the movements they support (big money, corporate powers, etc.) Even the bailouts are Obama's fault.
But that is apparently where the error occurs. Nothing man does is so completely "right" or above any reproach, even if led by God.

But talking about something being "obvious"; I would think that financiers (domestic or abroad) would be more likely to have the power to be causing a lot of the problems, than what the conservative "tea party" mindset seems to squarely blame; which is basically, the poor, on social programs, through taxes.

So what I'm not suggesting is that the left is all right, and the government should just raise taxes and give to the poor. No, don't redistribute the wealth to the poor, but then don't blame them for the redistribution that is obviously flowing on the opposite direction.
So I can't say either side is better. But again, I do see the Right pointing blame the wrong way, and the problem will never be solved like that, and I'm here in a largely conservative environment, so I'm voicing what I see wrong. Hopefully some will wake up and see what is really going on, and then change their focus, which is probably being deliberately diverted so that the people really controlling things can get you too blame your fellow neighbor while they rob us all blind.

 

OK, it's just not the way I determine truth. So you're actually affirming that you determine truth just by picking a side and sticking with it...
It doesn't matter if it might be right in one or two points, and wrong in all the rest; they simply becomes right because you choose that side.

It's not so much of a fluid position, but seeing both sides going nowhere. In fact, a lot of you conservatives have been saying the same things in recent elections. You're not happy with either the Democrats or Republicans. You see the Republicans now as just the same old thing. You many of you apparently gave up and did not pick a side, (and that was likely how Obama was ever able to get in in the first place). You were unhappy with Bush in the last election, and he got back in by a narrow margin.
So it's not just me. I'm just challenging one side I see making this claim to having all the truth, yet not able to effectively do anything about it except complain about who's in office. (Which is close to what you just said about me).

Where have I said it? The most I possibly might have said is that Conservatives blame more, or lierals are not as vocal or persistent with it, or something like that. But that's not the same as saying they are not in the game.

How conservative to make up stuff out of thin air to build a straw man argument.

Knows what what looks like? What are you even talking about?
All you ever do is make snide remarks, but I don't see you coming up with any answer.

You have yet to answer the question, of why my raising the issue is "whining", but your side's constant complaining about politics is not. Look who starts most of these discussions every day, week, or whatever about what Obama is doing; how the liberals are against you, how someone is reversing some injustice on you, etc. I don't see how you conservatives even have the gall to accuse anyone of whining. You're the ones who have filled the airwaves for three decades with constant tantrums, and have swayed a lot of politics with it, and are still not satisfied.
Both of you have completely deflected away from that point. (Would his comments be part of your "absolute truth", Dragoon? Is he speaking God's Word? Liberals are just whining jerks, you're the real victims they're trying to take something from. That's the "truth"? This is the sort of thing I'm getting at).

 

So you weren't unhappy in the last term, and thinking Bush and his administration were "just liberal Democrats in disguise". If not, then I apologize for your sake.
It seemed everyone here for the last eight years was unhappy with Bush (and in 2004, pushing for Peroutka of the Constitution Party, and the conservatives who were against him were only so based on the premise that they knew he would lose, and the votes would go to the Democrats).

People were no longer satisfied with the Republicans, even when they controlled all the branches of govt.

So I wonder who is it out here now that you all want in office to make you happy, and what do you think is stopping this from happening? (especially, since conservatives insist they always win the ideological debates).
Sometimes; I just wish you could get the leaders you want in power, so you all could cool it already, and we could see how much of your wishes they could actually accomplish.

But then that IS all I was saying. You're not satisfied with the major parties.

But my question is not so much about "conservatives" vs "liberals" as groups, even though we have sort of veered into that. It's individual ideologies and perspectives I have been getting at all along. Like who's to blame for all the economic problems. It just so happens that conservatives will form a group that blames another group called the liberals. Liberals may in return blame conservatives.

I'm not asking why you side with "the conservatives". It's why you (and conservatives in general) blame the factors that you do, and ignore or exhonerate what others have added as factors of the problems (and then you neatly categorize them as "liberals" for that), and then claim your views are so infallibly "truth" that some of you put down your opponents as stupid, blind, liberal, "whining", etc.
You're the one making everything "conservative" vs "liberal". I and others have been opposing much of the labeling your side does.

So if it seems like I'm just arguing fine details, it's because you're not understanding the questions, and trying to push me into one of your little boxes, expecting me to take a "side". Of course, if I choose the "wrong" side, then I'm just wrong; no further debate needed. Hence, another member and his little one line insults.
I've already said over and over that I do not see either side as worth "joining" and rallying for like you do.