God told Mike Johnson he's the new moses

[badger2]

The Framers in Virginia were required by law to attend church multiple times per week or face deprivations, so if you think they were trying to limit "conservatives"...

Link?

 

[badger2]

Nonsense. The Dem / Socialist agenda is utterly contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers. It's funny when Dems / Socialists lecture anyone on the Constitution they despise

The Dem / Socialist agenda is modeled on the all-consuming, oppressive government as we saw with the Stalinist - Leninist politburos. The Biden regime uses the DOJ, FBI and IRS much like the Soviet secret police. Political speech contrary to the politburo mouthpieces will result in the regime enforcers paying you a visit and jailing you.

The entirety of the constitution defines rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. It does not take any stretch of imagination to understand that the framers of the constitution intended to place limits such that government is restrained from interfering with individual freedoms.

Personal freedoms and rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives is the exact opposite of the Dem / Socialist agenda which is one of oppressive government being an all controlling entity.

You conveniently leave out the other side of the story: Founders making sure that religion was kept out of government. Otherwise, the prisoners may as well French-kiss Hamas theocracy.

 

[Curried Goats]

In other words by going along with their lies.

We aren’t bigoted, that’s why there are Christians of all races. We tell the truth to everyone and hope they all accept the truth.

Homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible. That is the truth.
Nobody hates humans more than Satan. That’s why he pushes lies like “homosexuality is okay” and the lies of transgenderism which lead to children being mutilated for life. Whose side are you on? We all know the answer.

So is eating shell fish but I don't see Christians waging culture wars because my grocery store displays lobster and crab in public for people to purchase and consume. The horror!

 

[Hollie]

You conveniently leave out the other side of the story: Founders making sure that religion was kept out of government. Otherwise, the prisoners may as well French-kiss Hamas theocracy.

The Constitution is an entirely secular document. I didn't conveniently leave that out as it's obvious to any reader.

 

[hadit]

Link?

Religion at Jamestown | Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation, VA

"There was little opportunity for men working in the vicinity of James Fort to avoid the required church services. The Captain of the Watch was under instructions to round up all persons, except those sick or injured, and bring them to the Church at the appropriate times. The laws prescribed a range of punishments for those who failed to attend services, as well as for the minister if he failed to conduct a service. Missing one would cost the settler his ration of food for the day. Additional absences received increasingly severe punishments and could result in death. There are no historic records of enforced punishments given in relation to church attendance at Jamestown."

 

[bendog]

By not being a bigot for starters.

You love your neighbors by allowing for them to express their own religious and moral views that don't require you to obey them.

 

[bendog]

Religion at Jamestown | Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation, VA

"There was little opportunity for men working in the vicinity of James Fort to avoid the required church services. The Captain of the Watch was under instructions to round up all persons, except those sick or injured, and bring them to the Church at the appropriate times. The laws prescribed a range of punishments for those who failed to attend services, as well as for the minister if he failed to conduct a service. Missing one would cost the settler his ration of food for the day. Additional absences received increasingly severe punishments and could result in death. There are no historic records of enforced punishments given in relation to church attendance at Jamestown."

And the Founders sought to put an end to that coercive bs

 

[BS Filter]

A typical incorrigible, you failed the history class in post #590.

you failed your parents.

 

[theHawk]

Right, let's hold everyone in a population responsible for the actions of 4 people. What could go wrong?

Only four people are demanding we go by their tranny lunacy?

We have a Supreme Court justice that can’t even define what a woman is now.

 

[bendog]

I don't think Johnson is unclear or dishonest in his views, he just wants to force me to worship his god ... and that is very dangerous to America

 

[hadit]

I don't think Johnson is unclear or dishonest in his views, he just wants to force me to worship his god ... and that is very dangerous to America

Be sure to let us know when he does that so we can round you up and put you in the cattle car. Seriously, dude, let us know when he does it.

 

[bendog]

Be sure to let us know when he does that so we can round you up and put you in the cattle car. Seriously, dude, let us know when he does it.

Hey, u alito and thomas

 

[kyzr]

No you wouldn't. That was a larger debate with another theist, William Lane Craig. It didn't go so well for Craig. You can listen to the entire debate here.

What is the reasoned theological explanation for why their is suffering?

You misunderstood the argument. He was pointing out that an omnipotent God has no need for nature to be fine tuned. He also pointed out the fine tuning is a bit of a misnomer. For instance entropy before the big bang was much lower than it needed to be for the universe to be able to sustain life.

Again you misunderstand the argument. He points out that we dont even fully understand how to define what life is or what properties are required for it to exist. He argues that life could very well exist in a universe created by different values and operating by different forces of nature. It would just look different than human life or even carbon based life.

He didn't say bad, he said different and energy isn't wasted, which again, is a subjective point of view. To science energy isn't created or destroyed, just transformed from one state to another.

For our universe to form. Given different parameters a different universe would of formed.

If they could be shot down than why haven't you yet?

No, only you can't. Science proves it everyday with all the technology you use around you.

It's more like general relativity isn't the whole picture, just as newtonian physics was revealed to be inadequate to explain objects with massive gravitational fields like black holes by general relativity. What physicists are trying to do today in find a unified theory for quantum mechanisms and general relativity.

1. Very cool debate, thanks. I think Craig won.

2. God created the universe allowing various life forms to evolve. How those various life forms evolve is random chance. Good things and bad thing happen, including sickness, suffering, and death.

3. An omnipotent God can create a universe according to finely tuned laws specific to that universe. There is no "nature" until he fine tunes it.

4. What is life? You can google it for a definition. Then again, what is consciousness? What is a soul? We agree that there could be finely-tuned universes with different parameters. Nothing excludes the existence of a God creator of a universe or a multiverse.

5. This is the key proof of God. Are there any failed universes? We don't know. What we do know is that the universe began from a speck of energy about the size of an atom that expanded and created the Earth, the Milky Way, and the billions (trillions?) of other universes. If you look around at how many atoms are around you, can you imagine one speck of energy about the size of an atom creating the entire universe? To many of us that tiny magical speck of energy could only have come from God.

6. Given different parameters no one knows if a different universe could have formed or not. But you still have the question, where did that tiny speck of magical energy come from? Your argument seems to be that there are these magical specks spewing out universes or not all the time. That's a lot of fucking magical energy to end up with a random mess of universes. I like the idea that a God creates universes, or not, according to His mood. <g>

7. Shooting down his arguments depends upon how the universe came into being. Why did the universe come into being? The atheists seem to believe that the universe always existed, since energy can't be created from nothing or destroyed. There is no fucking way that atheists can tap-dance around time and thermodynamics that explains how the universe's energy could go back to the size of an atom. No fucking way.

8. Where did the speck of magical energy come from? Was it the universe condensed down to the size of an atom, or was it created by God?
Science proves that the universe could not have existed before the atom-sized speck of energy was created.

9. True. Hawking looks to explain how the universe formed rather than explain how that speck of magical energy came into being, or why it came into being.

10. Thanks again for that video! Very cool debate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[hadit]

Hey, u alito and thomas

What does Johnson have to do with them?

 

[badger2]

Nope "freedom from religion" is just opposite of what we have in this country. You want that, you'll have to go to a communist country.

No other country is required, boycott works every time. This also goes for street preaching, once those duped by fairy tales have identified themselves.

 

[badger2]

Nope. The Establishment clause takes care of that.

You have no "freedom from religion". I can preach my religion in your ears, on the town square, in the park, on the sidewalk ... and you can't do jack squat about it.

If you read it, you misread it. If one has no freedom from religion, one has no freedom, especially the freedom from illusions about non-existent entities, entities that live only in the heads of believers.

 

[badger2]

ha ha... hilarious projecting

Not projecting: the Founders knew that stupidity always gets precisely the reality it deserves.

 

[badger2]

There are no restrictions on people of any religion to run for political office. Our founding fathers were "Deists. Buchanan and Dwight D. Eisenhower were Presbyterian. Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon were Quakers. James Madison was Episcopal. Four of our presidents, including Jefferson, were what we now refer to as Unitarian. James A. Garfield was part of the Disciples of Christ Church. Warren G. Harding was a Baptist, as was Jimmy Carter. John F. Kennedy was a Catholic and Joe Biden, a Catholic.
There is no litmus test of religion to become president. The only requirement, other than being a natural born citizen of the United States and 35 years of age at the time of being sworn in, is that the president "swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States," which all past presidents have done, excluding crooked Joe Biden.
As to some excellent examples of political leaders that were/are Atheists:
1. Kim Jung Un.
2. Xi Jinping.
3. Vladimir Lenin.
4. Ho Chi Minh.
5. Pol Pot.
6. Fidel Castro (while his family was Catholic, he personally said he wasn't a believer).
Thing they have in common, other than Atheism: No morals.

No restrictions on people of any religion should be the same lack of restrictions for those with no religion, otherwise, its faulty reasoning. The logic contradicts itself.

 

[badger2]

In that case you are attacking Christians

No, it just means that opportunist xians can find a convenient scapegoat once it whines above all the other religions in this crowd it was hiding within before it Jonesed for recognition. Like the pre-emptively racist statement, 'black lives matter.'