Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,089, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #1

    Nov 15, 2022, 02:41 AM
    Christian Nationalism
    In the theocracy of Iran, the morality police arrested a 22-year-old woman for not properly wearing her hijab (head covering). Three days later in a hospital while in police custody, the young woman died. Iranian citizens took to the streets to protest the death.

    Protestors were arrested. One protestor has been sentenced to be executed for the crime of “enmity against God”.

    Iran is a theocracy governed by Muslim fundamentalists. All religions have fundamentalists, including the US where they are generally known as white evangelicals.

    This US group has made itself more prominent by engaging in politics where their platform is based on Christian Nationalism – the US becoming a Christian country in governance. Their chief mission is to prohibit abortion for any reason in the entire country.

    More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”. As an organization without power, they cannot (yet) carry out such a policy, but their theocratic beliefs completely support such a policy. This policy is found in their belief that non-Christians will suffer for all eternity in a torture chamber (hell) for the crime of “enmity against God”. It is a small step once in power to implement this policy in the secular manner of judicial (official) murder.

    Words to the wise.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,620, Reputation: 156
    Ultra Member
     
    #2

    Nov 15, 2022, 05:58 AM
    More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”.
    A completely absurd allegation for which there is no evidence.

    This policy is found in their belief that non-Christians will suffer for all eternity in a torture chamber (hell) for the crime of “enmity against God”. It is a small step once in power to implement this policy in the secular manner of judicial (official) murder.
    Similarly untrue and ridiculously so. But if you are genuinely opposed to unjust killings, then you will come out today in opposition to the unjust and cruel killings of hundreds of thousands of unborn human beings every year.

    This is a common strategy used on this site. It amounts to asking others to believe something to be true for no other reason than that the writer believes it to be true. There will be no support offered, and quite likely this will not be responded to since there is really no rational defense for such outlandish statements.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,620, Reputation: 156
    Ultra Member
     
    #3

    Nov 15, 2022, 03:22 PM
    quite likely this will not be responded to since there is really no rational defense for such outlandish statements.
    Bingo.
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,420, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Nov 17, 2022, 09:04 PM
    More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”.
    A completely absurd allegation for which there is no evidence.
    Many prominent evangelicals have called for the execution of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them. Others have called for adulteresses to be executed (but not adulterers, funny how that works). We've seen what happens when the church gets political power. It was called the Inquisition, among other atrocities.

    But if you are genuinely opposed to unjust killings, then you will come out today in opposition to the unjust and cruel killings of hundreds of thousands of unborn human beings every year.
    Funny, this is exactly what you accused Athos of when you said

    It amounts to asking others to believe something to be true for no other reason than that the writer believes it to be true.
    Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. They knew what they were talking about when they wrote that because it had been less than 200 years since their ancestors fled the horrors of state religion. You are welcome to your religious view, and Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But your free exercise ends where that woman's nose begins, to paraphrase Paul Harvey.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,620, Reputation: 156
    Ultra Member
     
    #5

    Nov 18, 2022, 05:48 AM
    Many prominent evangelicals have called for the execution of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them. Others have called for adulteresses to be executed (but not adulterers, funny how that works).
    My comment was directed at the statement by Athos concerning, "executing those who show 'enmity against God'”. But at any rate, who has called for the execution of women who have abortions or for adulteresses but not adulterers? You say that this is true of "many prominent evangelicals", so surely you can name some of them. Even more to the point, other than a few scattered radicals (if there are any), has any prominent evangelical organization called for such actions?

    Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion.
    Please explain how science tells us that murder, rape, bank robbery, theft, lying under oath, and many other actions should be illegal.

    But your free exercise ends where that woman's nose begins,
    Two comments. 1. Your statement is a moral value. What science backs it up? 2. There is a vast body of law that tells us what we cannot do to another human being. Do those laws also invade another person's "nose"? Should a woman's rights over her own body end at her unborn child's "nose"?

    Funny, this is exactly what you accused Athos of when you said
    Not following you on that one.

    You have accused certain unnamed evangelicals of supporting the execution of certain individuals. Now that you seem to be on record for supporting abortion which results in the mass killings of unborn human beings, in what way do you possess any moral high ground in the discussion?

    Sincerely hope your daughter is doing better.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,089, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Nov 18, 2022, 02:35 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. They knew what they were talking about when they wrote that because it had been less than 200 years since their ancestors fled the horrors of state religion. You are welcome to your religious view, and Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But your free exercise ends where that woman's nose begins, to paraphrase Paul Harvey.
    This is he essential point that Christian Nationalists fail to understand. They have a strong tendency to discard anything that does not support their beliefs. Science and/or rationality is often wasted on them, but one perseveres.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,620, Reputation: 156
    Ultra Member
     
    #7

    Nov 18, 2022, 02:49 PM
    This is he essential point that Christian Nationalists fail to understand. They have a strong tendency to discard anything that does not support their beliefs. Science and/or rationality is often wasted on them, but one perseveres.
    Since no one here is advocating for Christian Nationalism, then your comment is...well.

    Regardless, no one here has offered any argument based on science, so while that could be a valid approach elsewhere, it has no merit here until someone actually DOES offer something logical based on "science and/or rationality".
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,420, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #8

    Nov 19, 2022, 09:16 AM
    who has called for the execution of women who have abortions or for adulteresses but not adulterers? You say that this is true of "many prominent evangelicals", so surely you can name some of them. Even more to the point, other than a few scattered radicals (if there are any), has any prominent evangelical organization called for such actions?
    Bakker and Falwell, to name just a couple. I suggest you look it up.

    Please explain how science tells us that murder, rape, bank robbery, theft, lying under oath, and many other actions should be illegal.
    Circular reasoning. You assume that the thing we're talking about is a crime and you equate it with others without any evidence. This is a purely emotional statement intended to stir emotions rather than convey information.

    1. Your statement is a moral value. What science backs it up? 2. There is a vast body of law that tells us what we cannot do to another human being. Do those laws also invade another person's "nose"? Should a woman's rights over her own body end at her unborn child's "nose"?
    Once again this is circular reasoning. The question is when a fetus becomes a human being, but you assume the answer that you prefer and use it to judge everyone else. And my statement is a constitutional one as well as a biblical one. Read what Paul said about freedom. Your freedom doesn't give you the right to tell someone else what to do with their body. That's sinning against another person.

    Not following you on that one
    I confess that genuinely surprises me. Let's try again. You told Athos

    It amounts to asking others to believe something to be true for no other reason than that the writer believes it to be true.
    Then you turned around and did exactly that when you said

    But if you are genuinely opposed to unjust killings, then you will come out today in opposition to the unjust and cruel killings of hundreds of thousands of unborn human beings every year.
    You are asking us to believe that a fetus is an "unborn human being" simply because you believe it. Many people don't, they consider it a "potential human being" but not a full person yet. Those people have at least as much science on their side as you have, in fact they have more. But you want us to believe the way you do simply because you believe it.
    That's the same thing you said Athos was doing. I hope that clears it up.

    And you dodged the fact that your statements are religious, not scientific, and thus have no place in lawmaking.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,620, Reputation: 156
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    Nov 19, 2022, 09:51 AM
    Circular reasoning. You assume that the thing we're talking about is a crime and you equate it with others without any evidence. This is a purely emotional statement intended to stir emotions rather than convey information.
    No, it was a reply to your contention that, "Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science." So I'm asking you what science justifies laws against murder, rape, etc. Please stop dodging the question.

    You are asking us to believe that a fetus is an "unborn human being" simply because you believe it. Many people don't, they consider it a "potential human being" but not a full person yet. Those people have at least as much science on their side as you have, in fact they have more.
    Science and rationality are on my side. 1. The fertilized egg has a completely unique DNA code that never changes throughout its life and is a completely human one. 2. That the fertilized egg is human is self-evident. To suggest it is "potentially human" has no standing at all. What does it mean to be "potentially" human? 3. The fertilized egg contains all of the attributes of living organisms. 4. The fertilized egg begins the process of growth and maturation that will go on for many years. 5. No one presents such a silly argument for any other species. We don't look at eagle eggs as "potential" eagles. It is recognized that they young eagle is an eagle from day one. This line of faulty reasoning is used only of humans for an obvious reason. 6. The same argument has been used for centuries. Black africans were not really human, so it was OK to enslave them. Enemy troops were "Gooks", "Krauts", "Japs", and so forth to make it seem less dehumanizing to kill them. This is the same strategy.

    What science do you employ to deny the unborn child's humanity?

    Besides all of that, my complaint was that Athos, when challenged to support his beliefs, evidently could not do so. As you can see above, I am happy to engage in this discussion.

    And you dodged the fact that your statements are religious, not scientific, and thus have no place in lawmaking.
    You said my statements were religious, not me. I was asking Athos to justify phony statements he had made about "white" evangelicals believing it is right to execute people for enmity against God. It was a question based upon rational thinking.

    Bakker and Falwell, to name just a couple. I suggest you look it up.
    You do realize that Falwell is long dead and Bakker hasn't been listened to in three decades? Please don't employ the tired old strategy of asking me to look up your information. It certainly makes it appear that you want me to look for that which you cannot find. It just seems to be a dodge. I will flatly state that I don't believe you can find a single instance of a prominent evangelical leader calling for the execution of women caught in adultery but suggesting the men go free, and certainly no evangelical group does so. That was your contention.

    If as you say, religion has no place in the formulation of law, how do you explain this? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The founding fathers understood quite well that the rights upon which laws are based are God given and thus unchangeable. Without those God-given rights, there is no foundation for law. Note that there was no appeal to science but rather to religion, the very opposite of what you advocate.

    Your freedom doesn't give you the right to tell someone else what to do with their body. That's sinning against another person.
    I agree with that. No woman has the right to do with her baby's body as she sees fit. Well said, though you likely did not mean it that way.
    Curlyben's Avatar
    Curlyben Posts: 18,509, Reputation: 1860
    BossMan
     
    #10

    Nov 19, 2022, 10:49 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    What science do you employ to deny the unborn child's humanity?.
    Bear in mind what board this is posted on, Religion > Christianity, rather than Current Events so science has little to no bearing on the discussion.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,620, Reputation: 156
    Ultra Member
     
    #11

    Nov 19, 2022, 10:52 AM
    Bear in mind what board this is posted on, Religion > Christianity, rather than Current Events so science has little to no bearing on the discussion.
    Read the discussion and you will see why the question is being asked. Good grief. My question is asked of DW who said, "Your statement is a religious one, not a scientific or legal one. We are a nation of laws based on rational inquiry, i.e. science." He then posted, " Many people don't, they consider it a "potential human being" but not a full person yet. Those people have at least as much science on their side as you have, in fact they have more." So I responded to that scientific remark. I note that you did not see fit to intervene about his comment. Wonder why? After all, wouldn't that "science has little to no bearing on the discussion," have been appropriate there?
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,024, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #12

    Nov 19, 2022, 11:07 AM
    No one presents such a silly argument for any other species. We don't look at eagle eggs as "potential" eagles. It is recognized that they young eagle is an eagle from day one.
    We look at eagle eggs as potential eagles. And yes, a hatched eaglet is an eagle.

    Genesis 2:7 -- “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

    Only when the fetus is born and has taken its first breath is it considered a human being, a living soul.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,620, Reputation: 156
    Ultra Member
     
    #13

    Nov 19, 2022, 11:22 AM
    We look at eagle eggs as potential eagles. And yes, a hatched eaglet is an eagle.
    You do today since it is convenient.

    As to the living breath argument, it has been refuted here many times. Adam was made of the dust of the ground and had no life of any kind until God breathed into him. That is not true of anyone else after him. You are trying to make the silly argument that the unborn baby is not even alive. Even pro-abortionists don't go that far since it is clearly ridiculous. And that is not meant in an ugly way. You are just making an argument that makes no sense when you contend that an unborn baby, one day prior to delivery, with a heartbeat, blood circulation, metabolism, brain waves, awareness of surroundings, and growing every minute is not actually alive.

    Using that logic, when a person stops breathing, he/she is no longer alive. That is, of course, not true. Otherwise, mouth to mouth rescutation would never be practiced.

    People in surgery sometimes have their breathing stopped, sometimes for hours. Are they no longer alive?
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,024, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #14

    Nov 19, 2022, 12:19 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    You are trying to make the silly argument that the unborn baby is not even alive.
    The unborn baby is human and alive, but is not yet a breathing soul with a functioning brain.

    Using that logic, when a person stops breathing, he/she is no longer alive.
    Alive, yes, but not functioning in a human way. No emotions, no eye contact, no smiling or frowning, no intellectual discourse, no pattycake, no joke telling, no memory. Have been there myself in an ICU.

    How many unhatched chicks did you eat for breakfast? You did call them chicks, of course, not eggs.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,620, Reputation: 156
    Ultra Member
     
    #15

    Nov 19, 2022, 12:24 PM
    The unborn baby is human and alive, but is not yet a breathing soul with a functioning brain.
    You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain??? You do realize that is ridiculous?

    Well, at least you do agree it is a living human. That's progress.

    Alive, yes, but not functioning in a human way. No emotions, no eye contact, no smiling or frowning, no intellectual discourse, no pattycake, no joke telling, no memory.
    So when you were there yourself, you were no longer a living soul. Interesting.

    How many unhatched chicks did you eat for breakfast? You did call them chicks, of course, not eggs.
    I don't eat unhatched chickens. If I did find such an egg, I doubt I would say, "Oh look! A potential chicken!!"
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,024, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #16

    Nov 19, 2022, 12:40 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    You are really trying to say the unborn baby does not have a functioning brain??? You do realize that is ridiculous?
    Who is it interacting with?

    So when you were there yourself, you were no longer a living soul. Interesting.
    Cherry picker! A living soul is breathing. (Gen. 2:7 -- breath of life = living soul) I was breathing.
    I don't eat unhatched chickens.
    That's exactly what you eat, according to your reasoning.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,620, Reputation: 156
    Ultra Member
     
    #17

    Nov 19, 2022, 12:44 PM
    Who is it interacting with?
    You are a counselor, and you don't know about how babies are often born able to recognize their mother's voice, and in some cases the father's voice? Wow. You are light years behind the times.

    Since the maternal voice is audible in utero, an infant starts to recognize their mother’s voice from the third trimester. The voice that they hear is muffled and low, and they can also hear their mother’s heartbeat. Soon after birth, studies have shown that a baby will recognize their mother’s voice and will expend great efforts to hear her voice better over unfamiliar female voices.
    https://babyschool.yale.edu/does-my-...9s%20heartbeat.

    Might add this.
    The cerebrum will begin to develop grooves and ridges and separate into the left brain and right brain. The cerebellum is the fastest-growing part of the brain in the third trimester. This is the part responsible for motor control, so your baby will begin to move more, wiggling fingers and toes, stretching, and kicking.
    Just amazing you know so little about this and yet claim to be a counselor and well-educated. Have you been kidding about all of that?
    Do you stand by your contention that unborn babies have no functioning brain???

    https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnan...0%99s%20weight.

    Cherry picker! A living soul is breathing. I was breathing.
    So what was your point?
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,024, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #18

    Nov 19, 2022, 12:49 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    You are a counselor, and you don't know about how babies are often born able to recognize their mother's voice, and in some cases the father's voice? Wow. You are light years behind the times.
    That's not considered interacting.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,620, Reputation: 156
    Ultra Member
     
    #19

    Nov 19, 2022, 12:57 PM
    Sure it's not. You went from the unborn not even having a functional brain to not having interactions when, of course, the baby is in the womb. So hearing and recognizing voices is the result of a non-functional brain. Just amazing.

    But even that retreat doesn't help you.

    A 2010 study from researchers at Italy’s University of Parma and University of Turin found that twins interact socially with each other as early as 14 weeks in the womb, according to Scientific American.
    https://www.deseret.com/2015/11/9/20...ks-in-the-womb

    How do you crawdad out of this one?
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,024, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #20

    Nov 19, 2022, 01:03 PM
    You still continue to twist words and shout out nonsense. Like Athos has said more than once, you have trouble with reading comprehension -- which, btw, leads to cherry picking.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

What Does It Take To Be A Christian? [ 60 Answers ]

What Does It Take To Be A Christian? So many churches say different things, And I want to know what your opinion is.

To what extent should nationalism be sacrificed in the interest of internationalism? [ 0 Answers ]

This is my essay question that I need to write. I need ideas and examples for this idea.

Christian [ 1 Answers ]

Hi. I am Mich3. I was looking for a Christian page. Is there one here?

Black     ural Nationalism [ 1 Answers ]

Why would the formulation of a black aesthetic have been necessary at the moment in history of the Civil Rights / Black Power movement; and is it still a useful ?


View more questions Search