[Athos]

Athos
You cited him (Jefferson) as proof of God instituting rights.

JL
I did not.

Then what is your proof that God instituted rights, if that is your contention.

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.

Straw man. Nobody said religion did NOT have a place in the formulation of law.

You have asserted that "white evangelicals" support "executing those who show 'enmity against God'”.

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.

My support is a prediction if and when Christian Nationalists create a theocratic nation as Iran has done. Context. Context. Context.

You would need, "I say that all of those who show enmity against God should be executed,"

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 other issue was DW's claim that laws are based on science

He defined science as rational inquiry. That is exactly what laws are based on.

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.

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.

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.

explain how science can give us laws. We wait patiently.

It's been explained three times now. Please do not fault others for your lack of comprehension.

My arguments have to do with ideas and not with any personal well-being or, for that matter, any personal feelings.

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.

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.

[jlisenbe]

Then what is your proof that God instituted rights, if that is your contention.

You're not listening. I haven't said that. I have said that the signers clearly believed that God instituted rights.

Straw man. Nobody said religion did NOT have a place in the formulation of law.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You assume that the thing we're talking about is a crime and you equate it with others without any evidence.

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.

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.

They DID appeal to a "Creator". That was the point. You're tripping on wishful thinking.

It's been explained three times now.

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."

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.

My arguments are based on what you claim to believe in which is rational thinking. You should try it!

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.

[dwashbur]

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.

They all attended church. But check out Jefferson's Bible. Deist all the way.

[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.

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?

Did you see the part where I said I haven't caught up with the thread yet? Patience, little one. I'm getting there.

I'm disappointed in you. I did not expect you to just spout the party line. But at least your cheerleader is still active.

What party would that be? I'm looking at history. I'm too old to party.

Neither you nor DW can document your false statements about what "white evangelicals" believe,

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.

[jlisenbe]

They all attended church. But check out Jefferson's Bible. Deist all the way.

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.

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 understand you believe that. To suggest it meant nothing is foolishness. It's yet another claim that cannot be documented.

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 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.

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.

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.

[dwashbur]

I asked for documentation for your absurd claim that prominent evangelical leaders wanted death for adulteresses but not for adulterers.

Not the topic we were currently working on.

You still need to explain how science can justify laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, libel, and so forth.

Also not the topic we are currently working on. But the answer is easy: the common good. Duh.

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.

The one who makes insulting comments such as "disappointment" and "ninth grader" decries me making insulting comments.
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.

[jlisenbe]

Not the topic we were currently working on.

A dodge. Has been asked and dodged many times.

Also not the topic we are currently working on. But the answer is easy: the common good. Duh.

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.

And then there is individual freedom to be considered.

And thank you for dodging the examples I gave.

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.

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.

[dwashbur]

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.

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.

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.

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'm done with your double standard. Have the last word, we all know you will anyway.

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.

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.

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."

But check out Jefferson's Bible. Deist all the way.

I did. It is full of Christian concepts such as a personal God and prayer, neither of which is a Deist concept.

[Wondergirl]

science cannot choose between competing claims.

Neither can religion.

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.

Neither does religion.

[jlisenbe]

Neither does religion.

That's not what the founding fathers believed.

[Wondergirl]

That's not what the founding fathers believed.

"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."
https://greatamericanhistory.net/blo...ans-or-deists/

[jlisenbe]

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,

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.

[Wondergirl]

And guns should be muskets only.

[jlisenbe]

Yes, and vacuum cleaners and washing machines should be outlawed. And CARS! Think of home many people cars kill every year.

[Wondergirl]

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!

[jlisenbe]

Uhm...you lost me on that one.

[Wondergirl]

Uhm...you lost me on that one.

No death then. No turkeys killed. Adam and Eve ate fruits and veggies.

And no roasted or grilled meat in heaven, right? No death.

[dwashbur]

No death then. No turkeys killed. Adam and Eve ate fruits and veggies.

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?

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[jlisenbe]

But the seeds are also alive. When you eat them, they die. Shame!!

How do you know they did not eat meat?