And those were? Cooking meals? Caring for the home? Being impregnated? Caring for the children?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
And those were? Cooking meals? Caring for the home? Being impregnated? Caring for the children?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Owning property. Protections against theft, rape, murder, etc. Owning a business. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". AND they were not required to fight wars, toil in the fields, work 12 hour days in terrible conditions, etc. It was hard on everyone in those days. Very few lived a life of ease. Families had to work together to keep life in order.
Still waiting to see any documentation for this material.
Quote:
This US group (white evangelicals) 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.
Not when those words were first written. What changed?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes. From the very beginning.Quote:
Not when those words were first written
Why then was the 19th Amendment needed?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. You will note that I mentioned nothing about voting. Most of what I mentioned was in state laws. Single women had advantages over married women depending on where they lived. I thought it was understood from the beginning of our discussion that women did not initially have the right to vote. Remember this? "It's also possible that it was an unfortunate sign of the times and had to be corrected, as it was, as time went by."Quote:
Owning property. Protections against theft, rape, murder, etc. Owning a business. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". AND they were not required to fight wars, toil in the fields, work 12 hour days in terrible conditions, etc. It was hard on everyone in those days. Very few lived a life of ease. Families had to work together to keep life in order.
Thus, American women have always been equal to men (or even more advantaged in some areas) except as voters.
I wouldn't say that. This is how I characterized it. "It is certainly true that women had many rights from the very beginning."
I will reply to your posts as noted by post number. I have read yours carefully. I trust you will do the same for mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Post # 38 (quoted immediately above).
Your conclusion is wrong. I.e., that the passage has nothing to do with rights. It has EVERYTHING to do with rights. When Jefferson writes that government derives its just POWERS from the consent of the governed, of course it includes its ability to make law. POWERS is a collective term referring to any and all government powers which certainly includes the rights encased in law.
When Jefferson writes of the "Creator", he is speaking as a Deist, not as a Christian. In fact, he said Paul was a corrupter of Jesus' message, declared the Book of Revelation was nonsense, and the Trinity was false. He was a non-Church-going Unitarian, primarily because Virginia had no Unitarian churches in his day. He even wrote a Gospel eliminating the miracles and admiring Jesus for his admonition to moral behavior.
Post # 27. I will reply to those comments you made in post # 27 to DW that you challenged. I will do it by numbered point by point so as not to take up so much space. Those interested can refer back to your post.
Point # 3. You called DW's evangelicals "unnamed". Not true. He named Bakker and Falwell.
Point # 4. You are asking for the specific science DW is referring to. You missed his point. He is referring to the general take from most scientists - not the technical aspects of the position. You can verify this yourself by a wide search on the internet using key words.
Point # 5. That seems to be directed at me. I refer you to my post #1 where I explain my reasoning based on white evangelicals attitude toward those who express enmity toward God. Hell is the analogy.
Point # 6. You are reading your reply literally without recourse to the people involved. For example, do you honestly believe Thomas Jefferson supported "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to those people he enslaved? Do you really think those rights were unchangeable for his slaves? In fact, they weren't unchangeable at all, seeing that they were denied to millions.
Point #s 8,9,10, and 11. DW will have to answer these for himself (functioning brain of the fetus). I don't know what his reasoning is for this.
Finally, your post # 37.
You wrote: "If our rights are dependent on the views of the majority (consent of the governed), which fluctuates as the wind on the seashore, then we are in big trouble." That is precisely what a democracy depends on. Churchill said it was the worst from of government - except tor all the others. It has always relied on cooler and wiser heads prevailing. The electoral college is the prime example. However, this failed in 2015 by electing the worst demagogue in American history - it guaranteed the very thing it was designed to avoid. The nation isn't over it yet.
You further wrote: "No one has suggested the law is unchangeable so I don't know where that came from." It came from your very own comment. See point #6 in your post #37.
Next: "You do realize that the expression "consent of the governed" is found in the Declaration, a document which you said has no force of law? If that's the case, then why did you appeal to it?" Simple enough - because the consent of the governed is the basis of all law including rights granted by government. The social contract assumes/requires the consent be informed. Otherwise, bad government, bad law.
"Sorry, but you demolished nothing." Wrong. I continued to demolish your positions because, where possible, I based my positions on facts. When not possible, on rational grounds.
Words and phrases have nuanced meanings depending on context. This seems to be a difficulty with your understanding - both with the documents discussed and especially with your reading of the Bible. When you read so much on the surface or in a shallow fashion, you miss much of what is intended.
Post 38. No, powers are the ability to govern and exercise authority. Rights refer to what inherently, in legal and moral power, rests with citizens. And since, as you now agree Jefferson said, they come from God, be that deist or whatever, they are not subject to the whims of the majority. The Creator does not have to be Deist. Might have been to Jefferson, but not to many of the other signatories. The concept was a brilliant retort to the proposition of the Divine Right of Kings, now replaced, according to the Declaration, by the divinely granted rights of individuals.
Post 27. Not a single evangelical leader has been named of whom it is documented that he supports the death penalty for "enmity against God" or death for adulteresses but not adulterers. It is an absurd allegation. Just throwing out names accomplishes nothing, and especially two people who have not exercised influence in 30 years. What you need is quotes from these people, and you have nothing to offer there. You have also just made broad claims about what scientists supposedly believe. DW claimed laws were based on science. Neither of you has offered even a whisper about how that might work. It's nonsense.
Post 37. "See point #6 in your post #37." Huh? That must have been a typo. Nothing of relevance in post 37. I think you are referring to this statement in post 9. "The founding fathers understood quite well that the rights upon which laws are based are God given and thus unchangeable." It is a clear reference to rights (not laws) being unchangeable, which is to say "certain unalienable rights." You failed to understand the point.
"the consent of the governed is the basis of all law including rights granted by government." Except that the very Declaration you are appealing to declared the exact opposite, saying that our rights come from a Creator and have not been simply "granted by government". It's why we are not a pure democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, and in our system the rights we have cannot be simply swept away by the whims of the public. There is a painstaking process which must be gone through, at least if the rule of law is still prevailing. It's why super majorities are required to add or subtract rights.
Now you are right in the sense that, in practical terms, our government passes and abolishes laws routinely, and even the Constitution was a work of man including the Bill of Rights. But in a higher moral sense, the rights we enjoy, according to the Declaration, are not granted by government but rather by God.
Sorry, but you have demolished nothing. It seems to me that your positions are based on preconceived ideas and emotion rather than truth. The weakness of your arguments reinforce what you are trying to oppose.
You cite Jefferson, yet you cannot reconcile his words about rights with the FACT that he was a slaveholder denying rights to millions. Can you explain that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Do you see the contradiction in your two statements? What is a super majority other than the public? Maybe informed, maybe a whim. We are certainly experiencing a public whim with Trump. The Trump public whim led directly to the reversal of Roe v Wade. I trust I don't have to connect the dots for you.Quote:
in our system the rights we have cannot be simply swept away by the whims of the public. ... It's why super majorities are required to add or subtract rights.
You have two problems with this statement. First, the Jefferson problem stated above. Second, you are injecting a religious faith into the equation. You need to prove that, and not with the words of a slaveholder.Quote:
But in a higher moral sense, the rights we enjoy, according to the Declaration, are not granted by government but rather by God.
You've got that exactly backwards. I rely on facts and rational discourse. You rely on magical thinking.Quote:
It seems to me that your positions are based on preconceived ideas and emotion rather than truth.
Your argument boils down to two "proofs". Jefferson, who was a smart man, but not infallible and whose words are tainted with the enormous fact of his being a slaveholder. The second is basing your position on religious faith without a scintilla of proof. You dissed the Divine Right of Kings, yet you are also claiming a religious support for yourself.
You also cited Jefferson. Did you make the reconcilement? Why would we? I'm not advocating for him.Quote:
You cite Jefferson, yet you cannot reconcile his words about rights with the FACT that he was a slaveholder denying rights to millions. Can you explain that?
Because in the context of changing the Constitution, it is not a super majority of the public. It is of the Congress and the states.Quote:
Do you see the contradiction in your two statements? What is a super majority other than the public?
I have proven by the text of the D of I that its 56 signers agreed that rights are granted by God and not by government. I'm sure they were all imperfect men as are you and I.Quote:
You have two problems with this statement. First, the Jefferson problem stated above. Second, you are injecting a religious faith into the equation. You need to prove that, and not with the words of a slaveholder.
The argument has to do with your silly assertions about what evangelicals supposedly argue for. You have provided zero evidence for that. It is also unarguably true that the founders believed that rights are instituted by God and not by governments. I have claimed no "religious support for myself". I am not arguing for myself in any way. I'm simply pointing out that your claims about "white evangelicals" are not based on facts. If you still claim that to be the case, then this is your opportunity to provide quotes from these people to that effect. If you can't, and you can't, then at least admit to it.
You cited him as proof of God instituting rights. I cited him as proof of rights being derived from the consent of the governed. HUGE difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Congress and the states are made up from the public.Quote:
Because in the context of changing the Constitution, it is not a super majority of the public. It is of the Congress and the states.
That is NOT a proof. That is a religious argument for which you have not the slightest idea what all 56 signers of the document believed. Many of them, like Jefferson, did NOT believe in the God of the Bible. Even if all 56 WERE Bible-totin' believers, that would still NOT constitute proof that rights are instituted by God.Quote:
I have proven by the text of the D of I that its 56 signers agreed that rights are granted by God and not by government.
My "silly" assertions are self-evident. The basis is your assertion that Hell exists. That's another discussion. You may state your position in another thread if you wish.Quote:
The argument has to do with your silly assertions about what evangelicals supposedly argue for. You have provided zero evidence for that.
Nonsense. Nothing "inarguable" about it. As stated above, you have no idea what they all thought. When Jefferson said "Creator", and you say "God", they are not the same. Jefferson didn't believe in your "God". This is a striking example of your demonstrated difficulty in understanding the nuances of similar words based on context.Quote:
It is also unarguably true that the founders believed that rights are instituted by God and not by governments.
Of course, you have! Your entire argument is based on God granting rights - not the consent of the governed.Quote:
I have claimed no "religious support for myself".
You are arguing for your position. Please stop playing word games.Quote:
I am not arguing for myself in any way.
My white evangelical points are from their stated Bible beliefs. They make no attempt to hide those beliefs. Believing in Hell in the afterlife is not opposed to believing punishment in this life for different beliefs. Examples abound in the Old Testament of your God doing exactly that.Quote:
I'm simply pointing out that your claims about "white evangelicals" are not based on facts.
Christian Nationalists are defined by wanting this nation to be a "Christian" nation. That leads to certain primitive mindsets as we are witnessing in another nation undergoing the throes of theocratic Islam.
Exactly what claims have I made that are not based on facts?Quote:
If you still claim that to be the case, (claims not based on facts)
I did not. I cited a document agreed to by 56 founders as evidence. It does not "prove" that the idea is true, but it does "prove" that 56 founders agreed with it since they all signed it, and it "proves" that they believed religion has a place in the formulation of law. They put their lives on the line and several suffered terrible loss. It is not true to simply contend that Jefferson "wrote" that document. He did write it, but then it was subject to extensive review which continued until all 56 signers could agree with it. To suggest they blindly signed is just inaccurate. Might add that at the time of the signing of the Declaration, Jefferson was a self-confessed Christian.Quote:
You cited him as proof of God instituting rights.
Let's make this simple. You have asserted that "white evangelicals" support "executing those who show 'enmity against God'”. DW added that they want to execute adulteresses but not adulterers. I say that is nonsense and have challenged you to show documentation for it. You have not even attempted to do so since you know you can't. Citing names or claiming it is "self evident" because they believe in the Bible is just silliness. If you can ever show any serious evidence that it's true, then we can continue. You can't, so that's basically that. You would need, "I say that all of those who show enmity against God should be executed," or words to that effect from prominent evangelical leaders or better yet, from leading evangelical groups. You can't present anything of the sort, so that's done.
The other issue was DW's claim that laws are based on science and that religion has no place in that process. To refute that I appealed to the Declaration. It plainly shows that 56 Founders agreed that our rights come from God with no mention of science. Neither of you has offered a scintilla of evidence to support your idea, nor any explanation of how science can show us that laws against rape, murder, theft, and so forth should be enacted. It just strikes me as a silly argument that the Declaration itself illustrates as wrong.
So show us the evidence. Show quotes from prominent evangelicals showing they want to see what you claim, or explain how science can give us laws. We wait patiently.
My arguments have to do with ideas and not with any personal well-being or, for that matter, any personal feelings.
Lots to go through here, but I couldn't let this go by.
Wrong again. You have no understanding of the founders' religious beliefs. These guys were not Christians, they were deists. Oversimplified, they believed in a God that created the universe, set it in motion, then went on vacation and really couldn't care less what it does. "Creator" was a nebulous, flexible concept to them and could mean anything from the Jewish God to Tao to natural processes, they each pretty much had their own definition. It did not mean what you mean when you use the word. I suggest you look that up. They were children of their age, which is commonly known as the Enlightenment. It was a time when rationality was supplanting religious belief in the quest for truth, and those gentlemen were right in the big fat middle of it, cheering it on.Quote:
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 simplistic approach to these things doesn't get you to the truth.
You made two of the same points I made, only your "Creator" lines were far better than mine. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Your second thought about his "simplistic approach" has been a problem for a very long time here.
I will now decide whether to reply to the rest of his post - time permitting.
First of all, that is flatly untrue. Not even Jefferson was a Deist at the time of the writing of the Declaration. Many of the signers were Congregationalists (a Protestant denomination) while most were Episcopalians. Neither group is Deist.Quote:
Wrong again. You have no understanding of the founders' religious beliefs. These guys were not Christians, they were deists. Oversimplified, they believed in a God that created the universe, set it in motion, then went on vacation and really couldn't care less what it does. "Creator" was a nebulous, flexible concept to them and could mean anything from the Jewish God to Tao to natural processes, they each pretty much had their own definition. It did not mean what you mean when you use the word. I suggest you look that up. They were children of their age, which is commonly known as the Enlightenment. It was a time when rationality was supplanting religious belief in the quest for truth, and those gentlemen were right in the big fat middle of it, cheering it on.
But even if that was true, it is still an appeal to religion in the declaration of rights, and that is the beginning of all law. It completely refutes your contention.
You have yet to explain your idea that science can mandate passing laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, etc. This has to be the fourth or fifth time I've asked this. Why the dodge?
I'm disappointed in you. I did not expect you to just spout the party line. But at least your cheerleader is still active.
This is the text of the Congressional Prayer Proclamation of 1779, just three years after the Declaration. It is definitely not a Deist prayer (then went on vacation and really couldn't care less what it does).
Quote:
THAT it be recommended to the several States to appoint the First Thursday in May next to be a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer to Almighty God, that he will be pleased to avert those impending Calamities which we have but too well deserved: That he will grant us his Grace to repent of our Sins, and amend our Lives according to his Holy Word: That he will continue that wonderful Protection which hath led us through the Paths of Danger and Distress: That he will be a Husband to the Widow, and a Father to the fatherless Children, who weep over the Barbarities of a Savage Enemy: That he will grant us Patience in Suffering, and Fortitude in Adversity: That he will inspire us with Humility, Moderation, and Gratitude in prosperous Circumstances: That he will give Wisdom to our Councils, Firmness to our Resolutions, and Victory to our Arms: That he will bless the Labours of the Husbandman, and pour forth Abundance, so that we may enjoy the Fruits of the Earth in due Season: That he will cause Union, Harmony, and mutual Confidence to prevail throughout these States: That he will bestow on our great Ally all those Blessings which may enable him to be gloriously instrumental in protecting the Rights of Mankind, and promoting the Happiness of his Subjects: That he will bountifully continue his paternal Care to the Commander in Chief, and the Officers and Soldiers of the United States: That he will grant the Blessings of Peace to all contending Nations, Freedom to those who are in Bondage, and Comfort to the Afflicted: That he will diffuse Useful Knowledge, extend the Influence of True Religion, and give us that Peace of Mind which the World cannot give: That he will be our Shield in the Day of Battle, our Comforter in the Hour of Death, and our kind Parent and merciful Judge through Time and through Eternity.
The Virginia Declaration, which predated the Declaration, identified the "Creator".
Strange words for Deists. What duty could be owed to an impersonal God who neither knows nor cares what we do? Why would they have had a duty to practice Christian virtues?Quote:
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
I've been on this site long enough to know these questions, as well as several others that have been posed, will not be addressed. There will only be vague appeals to "simplistic" thinking or supposedly "self-evident" truths. Too bad.
Then what is your proof that God instituted rights, if that is your contention.Quote:
Athos
You cited him (Jefferson) as proof of God instituting rights.
JL
I did not.
Straw man. Nobody said religion did NOT have a place in the formulation of law.Quote:
I cited a document agreed to by 56 founders as evidence. It does not "prove" that the idea is true, but it does "prove" that 56 founders agreed with it since they all signed it, and it "proves" that they believed religion has a place in the formulation of law.
Here's what I wrote: 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.Quote:
You have asserted that "white evangelicals" support "executing those who show 'enmity against God'”.
My support is a prediction if and when Christian Nationalists create a theocratic nation as Iran has done. Context. Context. Context.
Then how do you explain HELL for those who show enmity against God? Your OT God is the role model for execution in this life for those who show enmity against God.Quote:
You would need, "I say that all of those who show enmity against God should be executed,"
He defined science as rational inquiry. That is exactly what laws are based on.Quote:
The other issue was DW's claim that laws are based on science
DW's explanation was clearly laid out for you. 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.Quote:
To refute that I appealed to the Declaration. It plainly shows that 56 Founders agreed that our rights come from God with no mention of science. Neither of you has offered a scintilla of evidence to support your idea, nor any explanation of how science can show us that laws against rape, murder, theft, and so forth should be enacted. It just strikes me as a silly argument that the Declaration itself illustrates as wrong.
I will add that an appeal to the Declaration is a gross misreading. Of course they don't mention science. They don't mention rational analysis either, but that is the basis of what is written in the Declaration. You're tripping on "literal" again.
It's been explained three times now. Please do not fault others for your lack of comprehension.Quote:
explain how science can give us laws. We wait patiently.
If this comment weren't so sad, I'd be laughing. Your arguments are based on an emotional attachment to a literal reading of a 2,500 year old collection of books written by dozens of authors over several centuries. The OT God you revere so much is why you are so far from a rational understanding and why you are mired in personal feelings.Quote:
My arguments have to do with ideas and not with any personal well-being or, for that matter, any personal feelings.
You're not being asked to discard Christianity or God, rather you are invited to dig deeper into a faith that has meant a great deal to so many people over the years.
You're not listening. I haven't said that. I have said that the signers clearly believed that God instituted rights.Quote:
Then what is your proof that God instituted rights, if that is your contention.
From DW's post 4. "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." But I'm glad that you now seem to be agreeing that religion DOES have a place in the formulation of law.Quote:
Straw man. Nobody said religion did NOT have a place in the formulation of law.
From DW. "Others have called for adulteresses to be executed (but not adulterers, funny how that works)." You said, "More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show "enmity against God'". I have asked for documentation of those statements and received zip. That statement is not a prediction but rather describes a present situation.
A topic worth discussing, but that is not what you are being asked to defend. The topic of hell has been discussed thoroughly here on a number of occasions. If you'd like, I'll post my list of Bible references that refer to hell and a coming judgment. Still, that is off topic for this discussion.Quote:
Then how do you explain HELL for those who show enmity against God? Your OT God is the role model for execution in this life for those who show enmity against God.
The "thing we're talking about" is two-fold. 1. The involvement of religion in the formulation of law. 2. Your completely wrong statements about what "white evangelicals" believe. I have not suggested either of those is a crime nor equated them with crimes, so you have made yet another false statement.Quote:
You assume that the thing we're talking about is a crime and you equate it with others without any evidence.
They DID appeal to a "Creator". That was the point. You're tripping on wishful thinking.Quote:
I will add that an appeal to the Declaration is a gross misreading. Of course they don't mention science. They don't mention rational analysis either, but that is the basis of what is written in the Declaration. You're tripping on "literal" again.
Such a blatantly false statement that I feel sorry for you having made it. But you can easily put that to rest. Post the quotes. And lest you forget, here is the question. "Explain how science can give us laws."Quote:
It's been explained three times now.
My arguments are based on what you claim to believe in which is rational thinking. You should try it!Quote:
Your arguments are based on an emotional attachment to a literal reading of a 2,500 year old collection of books written by dozens of authors over several centuries. The OT God you revere so much is why you are so far from a rational understanding and why you are mired in personal feelings.
I'll add that while science employs rational thinking, the terms "science" and "rational thinking" are not synonymous. If you want to say that we base our laws on rational thinking, then I could agree with that since it is very rational to believe, as the signers did, that God has instituted human rights. Science is much more aptly defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It is therefore rational to understand that true science is of no use in making moral judgments from which laws could be based.
Neither you nor DW can document your false statements about what "white evangelicals" believe, so at least we can move on from that now. And you now seem to agree that religion can have a place in law making, so perhaps we have resolved these two issues.
They all attended church. But check out Jefferson's Bible. Deist all the way.Quote:
First of all, that is flatly untrue. Not even Jefferson was a Deist at the time of the writing of the Declaration. Many of the signers were Congregationalists (a Protestant denomination) while most were Episcopalians. Neither group is Deist.
[Quote]
But even if that was true, it is still an appeal to religion in the declaration of rights, and that is the beginning of all law. It completely refutes your contention.
[Quote]
Hardly. It was a common rhetorical device of the time that really means nothing. And again, "creator" means something very different than you claim.
Did you see the part where I said I haven't caught up with the thread yet? Patience, little one. I'm getting there.Quote:
You have yet to explain your idea that science can mandate passing laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, etc. This has to be the fourth or fifth time I've asked this. Why the dodge?
What party would that be? I'm looking at history. I'm too old to party.Quote:
I'm disappointed in you. I did not expect you to just spout the party line. But at least your cheerleader is still active.
I can "document" it from recent experience. It's documented by every politician who claims to be a Christian but calls for suppression of certain people's rights. Read anything from Bobo or MTG. Both say they're Christians but preach total hate against anybody who isn't exactly like them. And the white evangelicals are the ones sending them to Congress.Quote:
Neither you nor DW can document your false statements about what "white evangelicals" believe,
I've paid my dues when it comes to white evangelicals, dude. I grew up in it, lived in it, and have been betrayed by it many times. You don't want to go head to head with me on this, trust me.
One out of 56. They were predominately Christian. And even at that, Jefferson's Bible was done at the age of 77, several decades after penning the Declaration.Quote:
They all attended church. But check out Jefferson's Bible. Deist all the way.
I understand you believe that. To suggest it meant nothing is foolishness. It's yet another claim that cannot be documented.Quote:
Hardly. It was a common rhetorical device of the time that really means nothing. And again, "creator" means something very different than you claim.
I asked for documentation for your absurd claim that prominent evangelical leaders wanted death for adulteresses but not for adulterers. This is your reply, meaning you have nothing. The individuals you named, who are politicians for goodness sake and certainly not evangelical leaders, have never suggested what you have claimed.
I don't fear going head to head with a man who says things that are outrageous and then, rather than admit that he way overdid it, wants to sound threatening. Sorry, but you don't have the ability to do that. Your contention was ridiculous.Quote:
I can "document" it from recent experience. It's documented by every politician who claims to be a Christian but calls for suppression of certain people's rights. Read anything from Bobo or MTG. Both say they're Christians but preach total hate against anybody who isn't exactly like them. And the white evangelicals are the ones sending them to Congress.
I've paid my dues when it comes to white evangelicals, dude. I grew up in it, lived in it, and have been betrayed by it many times. You don't want to go head to head with me on this, trust me.
This has been disappointing. I really expected a reasoned, fact-based dialogue. Instead I just get generalities and insulting comments more fitting for a ninth grader. I have also lived around evangelicals all my life. I don't base my beliefs on evangelicals or on you. No matter what they have done to you, it does not justify your outrageous, false claims. Be responsible for yourself.
You still need to explain how science can justify laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, libel, and so forth.
Not the topic we were currently working on.Quote:
I asked for documentation for your absurd claim that prominent evangelical leaders wanted death for adulteresses but not for adulterers.
Also not the topic we are currently working on. But the answer is easy: the common good. Duh.Quote:
You still need to explain how science can justify laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, libel, and so forth.
The one who makes insulting comments such as "disappointment" and "ninth grader" decries me making insulting comments.Quote:
You are a disappointment. I really expected a reasoned, fact-based dialogue. Instead I just get generalities and insulting comments more fitting for a ninth grader.
That's evangelical behavior all the way. I will go to the stake for Jesus, but evangelicals can go jump. They are wrong about everything. In particular, they have no clue what their role in the world is supposed to be. Hint: it ain't political.
And thank you for dodging the examples I gave. It proves my point.
Evangelicals started losing their way when Jerry Falwell created the Moral Majority. He decided that legislating morality is our mission, and millions of evangelicals followed his lead. As far as I'm concerned they followed him straight into hell. Christians can't learn from history, especially their own. Every time the church gets involved in politics, politics wins and the church is corrupted. Every. Time. Yet they keep doing it. It plays right into the enemy's hands. Claws. Whatever he has. Mittens. I don't know. But you get the point. Those "Christians" I mentioned are an embarrassment, and people like them are the reason we can't bring Jesus to a hurting, dying world, and it infuriates me.
And by the way, I know Falwell is dead. Falwell Junior is not. Duh.
A dodge. Has been asked and dodged many times.Quote:
Not the topic we were currently working on.
Science cannot determine the common good. It does not fall within the realm of scientific claims. Rational discussions about the social good can help with that, but that's not really science. Religion can be helpful as well. Perhaps your faith does not address the common good. Mine does.Quote:
Also not the topic we are currently working on. But the answer is easy: the common good. Duh.
And then there is individual freedom to be considered.
You are again mistaken. I addressed Falwell and Baker TWICE. Look in post 9. And even at that, you have posted no evidence at all that they called for death for adulteresses only or for death for "enmity against God". So you are still in the wilderness.Quote:
And thank you for dodging the examples I gave.
If you want to discuss Christians in politics, then we can do that. I did enjoy reading your next to last paragraph and think that could be a good discussion, but I'll ask you to document your contentions then just as I am doing now. I hope you meet with more success should that happen.
Your "duh" comments are childish and generally follow statements by you which are not correct to begin with. Falwell Jr., for instance, never had anything close to the clout of his dad and was forced to resign in disgrace in 2020. And so far as anyone here knows, he NEVER said what you and Athos claimed evangelicals said. Since neither of you can document those wild claims, which I have no doubt are untrue to begin with, then I think I can drop that until you at least attempt to do so.
You have been given sufficient examples for just about anyone. But no amount of evidence will be enough for you because you're determined to deny the truth. Both called for stoning of gays, adulteresses and sex workers. Nothing about johns. The list goes on and on. Documenting all of them would take several pages and you know it.Quote:
You are again mistaken. I addressed Falwell and Baker TWICE. Look in post 9. And even at that, you have posted no evidence at all that they called for death for adulteresses only or for death for "enmity against God". So you are still in the wilderness.
That is the most ridiculous thing you've come up with yet. What are vaccines? Antibiotics? Advanced surgeries? Prosthetics? Insulated homes? Clean water? Clean air standards? All are aspects of the common good as determined by science.Quote:
Science cannot determine the common good. It does not fall within the realm of scientific claims. Rational discussions about the social good can help with that, but that's not really science. Religion can be helpful as well. Perhaps your faith does not address the common good. Mine does.
If you can't even realize that, we're done. In fact, I'm done anyway. This is tiring and boring. You have one set of rules for yourself and another for everyone else. You can make wild claims and back them up with nothing but anybody else has to provide a doctoral dissertation on the subject.
I'm done with your double standard. Have the last word, we all know you will anyway.
Nonsense. If you had evidence of this you would link it. But even if it was true, it would be meaningless. The great, overwhelming bulk of evangelical leadership does not agree, and so your remarks were ridiculous. I don't know of a single prominent evangelical leader who calls for such things, and evidently neither do you.Quote:
You have been given sufficient examples for just about anyone. But no amount of evidence will be enough for you because you're determined to deny the truth. Both called for stoning of gays, adulteresses and sex workers. Nothing about johns. The list goes on and on. Documenting all of them would take several pages and you know it.
Complain, complain. I did not say science could not provide important advances, but science cannot choose between competing claims. Should assault weapons be banned? Should alcohol be illegal? Should marijuana be legal? What should divorce laws allow? Should a woman be allowed to have her unborn child killed? Should freedom of religion and speech be allowed? How large should welfare programs be? Is gay marriage a good idea? Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children? Those are choices which impact the common good, and science has no ability to decide them. It's why you have proven unable to answer this question. "Can science justify laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, libel, and so forth."Quote:
That is the most ridiculous thing you've come up with yet. What are vaccines? Antibiotics? Advanced surgeries? Prosthetics? Insulated homes? Clean water? Clean air standards? All are aspects of the common good as determined by science.
If you can't even realize that, we're done. In fact, I'm done anyway. This is tiring and boring. You have one set of rules for yourself and another for everyone else. You can make wild claims and back them up with nothing but anybody else has to provide a doctoral dissertation on the subject.
I did. It is full of Christian concepts such as a personal God and prayer, neither of which is a Deist concept.Quote:
But check out Jefferson's Bible. Deist all the way.
Neither can religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Neither does religion.Quote:
Should assault weapons be banned? Should alcohol be illegal? Should marijuana be legal? What should divorce laws allow? Should a woman be allowed to have her unborn child killed? Should freedom of religion and speech be allowed? How large should welfare programs be? Is gay marriage a good idea? Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children? Those are choices which impact the common good, and science has no ability to decide them.
That's not what the founding fathers believed.Quote:
Neither does religion.
"For most of America’s Founding [Fathers], their religious writings support two primary positions: (1) The God of the Bible governs the affairs of mankind, and (2) each person should have the freedom to worship Him as he or she sees fit. Although these beliefs are more than deism, they are not, by themselves, sufficient for Christianity. Theistic rationalism is a reasonable description of the Founders' beliefs."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://greatamericanhistory.net/blo...ans-or-deists/
Thank you for supporting my position. The founding fathers were largely not deists and attributed rights to a Creator God. Well documented!! No one has argued they were a bunch of evangelical Christians, but it is simply true that the "Creator" prominently mentioned is a personal God.Quote:
their religious writings support two primary positions: (1) The God of the Bible governs the affairs of mankind, and (2) each person should have the freedom to worship Him as he or she sees fit. Although these beliefs are more than deism,
And guns should be muskets only.
Yes, and vacuum cleaners and washing machines should be outlawed. And CARS! Think of home many people cars kill every year.
Yes! Methinks you're on to something! And we should all become vegetarians like Adam and Eve were in the beginning! Roasted Brussels sprouts instead of roasted turkey for Thanksgiving!
Uhm...you lost me on that one.
No death then. No turkeys killed. Adam and Eve ate fruits and veggies.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And no roasted or grilled meat in heaven, right? No death.
What happens to a carrot when you pull it up and eat it? Or a turnip? What happens to the grain plants when you harvest the seeds?Quote:
No death then. No turkeys killed. Adam and Eve ate fruits and veggies.
And no roasted or grilled meat in heaven, right? No death.
They die. "No death" is based on a misinterpretation of Romans 5:12. Even though "death came to all MEN" makes it clear he's only talking about human death, there are those who think it's talking about every living thing.
They all forget that plants are living things, too.
Plants leave seeds for the next generation. Adam and Eve ate fruits and veggies from God's Garden. No roasted rib eye steaks or grilled burgers.
But the seeds are also alive. When you eat them, they die. Shame!!
How do you know they did not eat meat?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:57 PM. |