re: Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?

To which conservative values are you referring?

You fear that the Left will win over supporters from Christians? (Be honest, religion mostly means Christianity to you and it’s Jesus toward whom-ultimately-your enmity is directed.

Be advised: Leftists have already made inroads into the Church by corrupting it on a number of fronts and issues. A good many educated white females and their men supporting the Left and its policies with their votes likely profess to be Christians, probably have their children in private (liberal) denomination Christian schools, and hate DJT, JDV, and closed border policies-profess support for illegals and would never bring one into their neighborhood much less their home or their kids’ schools. They would never have an abortion but support a woman’s “right” to kill their child. No wonder the “mother” who killed her three children has such support from so many women.

I believe the answer to your question is that conservative values, at least those values implicitly moral and ethical, stem from a universal sense of good and evil, right and wrong-a moral and ethical “law” that generally pertains to all cultures and at all times. One example. Some cultures permit a man multiple wives while others permit and encourage monogamous marriage. No culture encourages a man, married or otherwise, to take another man’s wife. Although it seems to me at times that our society is close.

I believe C. S. Lewis in his writings referred to this universal code as the Tao.

quote:

---

It's mildly amusing that you lack complete humility and yet claim to be all knowing in your assurance of the lack of Gods existence

---

Not in one of my posts have I stated i didn’t believe in God

quote:

---

Not in one of my posts have I stated i didn’t believe in God

---

You have the floor. Here's your opportunity. Tell us what you believe.

quote:

---

Romans 2.

---

Self-referencing a biblical quote doesn't answer the question in any way.

quote:

---

Self-referencing a biblical quote doesn't answer the question in any way.

---

Romans 2 is actually directly responsive. My answer wasn't trying to prove Christianity true. It was answering "How does Christianity explain this?" Romans 2 was tailor-made for that question.

You can reject Paul's explanation, but saying it "doesn't answer the question in any way" is false. It answers it explicitly. It is okay that you don't like the answer.

quote:

---

they have rock solid values

---

Who is the arbiter of this?

quote:

---

But for some reason we can’t separate those great Christian values from religion

---

Hmmmm wonder why?

Christ sits at the right hand of God because the work of atonement is finished. The old priests remained standing because sacrifices had to be offered again and again. Christ offered Himself once, completely and sufficiently, and sat down.

And that finished sacrifice is what gives us access to God. We don't approach God because we've made ourselves worthy; we approach through Christ, because His blood has opened the way into God's presence. That's why Hebrews says we can now “draw near” to God with confidence.

quote:

---

And that finished sacrifice is what gives us access to God. We don't approach God because we've made ourselves worthy; we approach through Christ, because His blood has opened the way into God's presence.

---

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. ... For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

-- Ephesians 2:13, 18

quote:

---

It was answering "How does Christianity explain this?

---

That was not the question asked.

quote:

---

That was not the question asked.

---

It absolutely was the question asked.

You asked how peoples with no contact with Christianity or Judaism could arrive at similar concepts of morality.

Romans 2 gives the Christian answer to precisely that question: possession of Scripture is not required for humans to recognize moral law. Paul says the Gentiles, though they do not have the Law, can nevertheless do what the Law requires because its requirements are written on their hearts, with conscience bearing witness.

An answer does not cease being an answer because you reject its truth.

I assume you're trying to say that if a society had no contact with Judaism or Christianity yet developed similar moral principles, then those principles couldn't have come from religion. That would make sense if my argument were that morality was transmitted to them through religious teaching. It isn't. Your "no contact" condition may show that Christianity wasn't the historical transmitter of those particular moral rules. It doesn't show that morality is therefore unrelated to God.