Doctor Fate wrote:I would only say there is little doubt that our system has founding in British common law and a biblical worldview.

Common Law goes back before the Angles and Saxons were converted to Christianity, and the peak time for our law recognising a "biblical worldview" was during the 1650s when we had a Republic of sorts, ruled by zealous elements from the military, who were evicted soon after Cromwell croaked.

The Common Law system is not religious itself in any appreciable way - the property aspects of our law are not related to the Biblical property and inheritance systems. All it means is that law is based on precedent and later we ended up with the principle that a person is free to do what they will unless the law forbids it. It differs from the Civil Law systems that applied in the post-Roman states where precedent counts for less than the stated law, and personal freedoms are not as guaranteed. Of course, the US system does not institute Common Law for the States - New York did not move across from Civil Law until some decades later, and Louisiana and California still use Civil Law for non-criminal law.

It is clear the Founders feared permitting any branch of government having too much power--hence checks and balances, separation of powers, etc. All because of this: man is inherently evil and untrustworthy.

That is not part of a biblical view, though, is it? In the bible, as you have pointed to, whoever is in worldly authority is there because God let them (or as some have it, ordained them to be there), so you would not need "checks and balances". It is abundantly clear that the "Founders" wanted religious freedom, and while that was likely in an assumed context of Christianity - and mainly Protestantism - those who wanted to shy away from any explicit links held the majority view.

Again, the concepts of checks and balances in the Constitution are wise, but I see no evidence that they are "biblical", or Jewish or Christian in origin. They owe more to the pre-Augustian Rome that existed in a pagan context (although the religious aspects were minimal).

Doctor Fate wrote:Fine. They all hated the Bible, were atheists, and probably would have nuked Jerusalem if they had the button back then.

Ahh, the old false dichotomy / missing middle.

Just because they were not instituting "Judeo-Christian" or "Biblical" values into the Constitution does not mean that they were antipathetic to religion.

They just wanted to keep religion and the secular framework separate. And for good reason, having seen what happened in England and Scotland as well as other part of Europe when the state was linked to religion more closely: persecution.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Fine. They all hated the Bible, were atheists, and probably would have nuked Jerusalem if they had the button back then.

Ahh, the old false dichotomy / missing middle.

Just because they were not instituting "Judeo-Christian" or "Biblical" values into the Constitution does not mean that they were antipathetic to religion.

They just wanted to keep religion and the secular framework separate. And for good reason, having seen what happened in England and Scotland as well as other part of Europe when the state was linked to religion more closely: persecution.

Nope.

Doctor Fate wrote:Nope.

TL:DR

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Nope.

TL:DR

NDTD

danivon wrote:Again, the concepts of checks and balances in the Constitution are wise, but I see no evidence that they are "biblical", or Jewish or Christian in origin. They owe more to the pre-Augustian Rome that existed in a pagan context (although the religious aspects were minimal).

NB: I did not argue, ever that "checks and balances are in the Bible."

Look it up. Cut and paste everything I wrote and do a word search.

You complain about logical fallacies, etc., then you commit them like they don't exist.

I've no more time for this nonsense.

And, the next bit of dishonest stuff posted here is going to start a flame war that will end Redscape. So, please stop.

In fact, why not just go back to the topic, Gander?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Again, the concepts of checks and balances in the Constitution are wise, but I see no evidence that they are "biblical", or Jewish or Christian in origin. They owe more to the pre-Augustian Rome that existed in a pagan context (although the religious aspects were minimal).

NB: I did not argue, ever that "checks and balances are in the Bible."

Look it up. Cut and paste everything I wrote and do a word search.

I did not claim that you did say that. You can "look it up".

But you did put them in with the claim that man is "inherently evil". And I did not exhaust my statement with just "biblical" - I went back to your original claim of "judeo-christian" origin. If you are not arguing that there is a Judeo-Christian reason for the checks and balances, and if your view of religion is based on the bible that would imply at least some biblical reasoning, then why mention "checks and balances" if not to associate them with your argument?

If it was irrelevant, then fair enough. If it was not, then please explain why someone disagreeing with you about your assertions makes you so touchy?

In fact, why not just go back to the topic, Gander?

Sure. Dear's cabin had a crucifix and a quote from Psalm 51. More evidence that he was inspired by Christianity.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29214 ... -say-rural

The trailer had no plumbing, Post said. Trash was littered around the inside of a tiny yard enclosed with wire fence. The trailer is outfitted with solar panels on the west side. Electrical cords snaked from the panels into several trailer windows.

A notice from an animal control officer taped to the front door warned Dear's girlfriend, Stephanie Bragg, that two German shepherds would become the property of the Park County Sheriff's Department if she failed to prove her intent to feed them.

Attempts to reach Bragg by visiting her and contacting family members by phone were unsuccessful. Some relatives said she did not have a phone and had to drive into Hartsel to call them on pay phones.

Remnants of the lives of two people were scattered about the tiny property on a vast snow-covered plain. Piles of driftwood braced the base of the wire fence.

A small tool shed sitting on a trailer was a few feet north of the chicken coop. The former occupants of the home also left behind a four-wheel recreation vehicle and a banged-up silver Kia sedan.

A snow shovel and ladder made out of two-by-fours lay on the ground.

A black wooden crucifix was affixed to the front of the trailer. A wooden plaque with words from a Biblical psalm hung from the wall of the cluttered tiny room. "Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me," the inscription taken from the 51st Psalm said.

A handwritten note, left on a cabinet cluttered with items including four bottles of bourbon, was plainly visible from the porch through the open door.

"Please pray with me that I will be completely yielded to God with all my heart. Thank you for your testimony and loving the Lord so," the note says.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Again, the concepts of checks and balances in the Constitution are wise, but I see no evidence that they are "biblical", or Jewish or Christian in origin. They owe more to the pre-Augustian Rome that existed in a pagan context (although the religious aspects were minimal).

NB: I did not argue, ever that "checks and balances are in the Bible."


Look it up. Cut and paste everything I wrote and do a word search.

I did not claim that you did say that. You can "look it up".

#thanksforbeingajerk

But you did put them in with the claim that man is "inherently evil". And I did not exhaust my statement with just "biblical" - I went back to your original claim of "judeo-christian" origin. If you are not arguing that there is a Judeo-Christian reason for the checks and balances, and if your view of religion is based on the bible that would imply at least some biblical reasoning, then why mention "checks and balances" if not to associate them with your argument?

If it was irrelevant, then fair enough. If it was not, then please explain why someone disagreeing with you about your assertions makes you so touchy?

Because you're being a jackass about it. Is that clear enough?

If you want to argue the roots of the US, start another forum. There isn't enough time in my remaining life to untwist all the lies, distortions and garbage you have managed to pack into your last few posts. Is that clear enough? Would you like me to expand on that?

In fact, why not just go back to the topic, Gander?

Sure. Dear's cabin had a crucifix and a quote from Psalm 51. More evidence that he was inspired by Christianity.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29214 ... -say-rural

Nice bit of editing. I took a slightly different portion of the article:

The Planned Parenthood shooting reinforced concerns by Gore and others about who is moving into the county during the marijuana migration.

Almost all the new marijuana cultivation and business entrepreneurs are from other states, Gore said.

According to a New York Times profile, Dear sought companions with whom he could smoke marijuana in North Carolina, where he lived before moving to Colorado in 2014.

The sheriff's office has assigned two deputies to investigate pot grow operations full time, and he has requested funding for two more deputies.

Gore said he gets two calls a week from residents who tell him they voted for the legalization but are having second thoughts after people moved next door and began pot grow operations.

"This could be overwhelming to the small town of Hartsel," Gore said.

Many newcomers are violating state regulations for cultivating marijuana, including exceeding state limits for the number of plants that can be grown, he said.

Hartsel has become a destination point for a number of people who want to get away from others and live in isolation.

"Once in a while, you get someone who breaks over — who loses sight of basic moral values," Lyons said.

You can blame "Christianity" all you want. I think there's a good deal more evidence he was a drug-addled nut.

You think I'm being a jerk? Who is the one threatening a "flame war that will end Redscape"? Get a grip, son.

And yes, I have the temerity to disagree with you and present a different view of things like British legal history and the reasoning behind the secular constitutional framework of the USA. And so you start accusing people of lying when you have nothing else. Whatevs.

You said you wanted to leave it and go back to the original topic...

Doctor Fate wrote:You can blame "Christianity" all you want. I think there's a good deal more evidence he was a drug-addled nut.

Personally I will go with "drug addled religious nut"

You do realise there could be more than one source of his motivation to shoot up a PP site? Drugs and religion seem to me to make a heady mix.

But reading that article it did not show he was growing dope, just that he lived in a shack like many dopers.

danivon wrote:You think I'm being a jerk? Who is the one threatening a "flame war that will end Redscape"? Get a grip, son.

And yes, I have the temerity to disagree with you and present a different view of things like British legal history and the reasoning behind the secular constitutional framework of the USA. And so you start accusing people of lying when you have nothing else. Whatevs.

I accused you of being a jerk . . . because you were being a jerk.

You are welcome to disagree with me. The "jerk" part comes in INTENTIONALLY putting words in my keyboard that I did not write repeatedly so you can show I am "wrong." That is lying with a specific purpose of discrediting one's opponent. It makes things personal and flame-worthy.

You said you wanted to leave it and go back to the original topic...

Yes, but you won't.

Doctor Fate wrote:You can blame "Christianity" all you want. I think there's a good deal more evidence he was a drug-addled nut.

Personally I will go with "drug addled religious nut"

You do realise there could be more than one source of his motivation to shoot up a PP site? Drugs and religion seem to me to make a heady mix.

Sure, but the evidence you have of "religion" is negligible. Some crap around his dump of a living place. Were they his or his girlfriend's? When was the last time he was in a church? Which one? Where is he getting instruction?

Look, Charles-freaking Manson thought he knew the Book of Revelation. Was he "religiously-motivated?" If that's your definition, then anyone who has read a "holy book" and does something later in life that they tie to that book is "religiously-motivated." That's a spurious standard.

But reading that article it did not show he was growing dope, just that he lived in a shack like many dopers.

And that he appeared to be part of the "green rush." He seems to addled to actually grow anything.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:You think I'm being a jerk? Who is the one threatening a "flame war that will end Redscape"? Get a grip, son.

And yes, I have the temerity to disagree with you and present a different view of things like British legal history and the reasoning behind the secular constitutional framework of the USA. And so you start accusing people of lying when you have nothing else. Whatevs.

I accused you of being a jerk . . . because you were being a jerk.

You are welcome to disagree with me. The "jerk" part comes in INTENTIONALLY putting words in my keyboard that I did not write repeatedly so you can show I am "wrong." That is lying with a specific purpose of discrediting one's opponent. It makes things personal and flame-worthy.

Except that I never quoted anything you did not type. I quoted your posts, and I responded to what I thought was the meaning.

Accusing me of misquoted you when you only evidence relies on taking part of a sentence is, of course, in no way being a jerk.

Doctor Fate wrote:You can blame "Christianity" all you want. I think there's a good deal more evidence he was a drug-addled nut.

Personally I will go with "drug addled religious nut"

You do realise there could be more than one source of his motivation to shoot up a PP site? Drugs and religion seem to me to make a heady mix.

Sure, but the evidence you have of "religion" is negligible. Some crap around his dump of a living place. Were they his or his girlfriend's? When was the last time he was in a church? Which one? Where is he getting instruction?[/quote]I don't know. I am sure we will find out more. But add it to his statements on the Internet and the statements of people who knew him and it does appear that his opposition to abortion comes from some religious belief.

And not all believers think they need "instruction". Maybe they are wrong, I dunno.

But reading that article it did not show he was growing dope, just that he lived in a shack like many dopers.

And that he appeared to be part of the "green rush." He seems to addled to actually grow anything.

Maybe too busy praying and preparing himself for righteous vengeance on behalf of the unborn. We will see in due course.

Danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Sure, but the evidence you have of "religion" is negligible. Some crap around his dump of a living place. Were they his or his girlfriend's? When was the last time he was in a church? Which one? Where is he getting instruction?

I don't know. I am sure we will find out more. But add it to his statements on the Internet and the statements of people who knew him and it does appear that his opposition to abortion comes from some religious belief.

And not all believers think they need "instruction". Maybe they are wrong, I dunno.

His "statements on the Internet?" Do you mean statements he wrote somewhere or what has been attributed to him? (Note: when one does not understand another, asking a question to clarify is the right thing to do).

"Some religious belief" is so negligible. There are approximately 7 billion people on the planet. Each individual could have their own "belief system." It can be tied to one thing, an amalgam of many things, or it could be based on the voices in one's head. Mr. Dear appears to be of the latter sort.

As for needing instruction, the Bible says all believers do. Any Christian who thinks he/she does not is either ignorant of the Bible or willfully in rebellion--either one is not an acceptable long-term position.

But reading that article it did not show he was growing dope, just that he lived in a shack like many dopers.

And that he appeared to be part of the "green rush." He seems too addled to actually grow anything.

Maybe too busy praying and preparing himself for righteous vengeance on behalf of the unborn. We will see in due course.

Agreed re "we will see," but I like my chances. I believe you have place too much faith in some invisible faith you see in Dear that is not evident.

Doctor Fate wrote:His "statements on the Internet?" Do you mean statements he wrote somewhere or what has been attributed to him? (Note: when one does not understand another, asking a question to clarify is the right thing to do).

You've seen the same articles we have.

The account attributed to him on cannabis.com (which would be consistent, no?) used the site to make posts about religion. Is it proven in a court of law that it is his? No. Does it seem likely that it is based on the use of the same name and location he was living in at the time, and that he likes cannabis? It does to me.

Dear first posted about religion on October 3, 2005, when he replied to a thread titled, “Jesus was a fraud.” He wrote, “u wont like hell , jesus is the only hope. satan has blinded u little demon.”

On October 7, he wrote, “turn to Jesus or burn in hell. Wake up sinners u cant save yourself u will die an worms shall eat your flesh, now your soul is going somewhere.”

He also posted several times in the next few weeks different variations of “Every knee shall bow an tongue confess Jesus is lord in this world or the next.”

Dear wrote that “herb” was created by God, so man’s laws against the drug are against God. He also ranted against women, posting, “god made the woman out of the mans side sorry but womans lib cant change it.”

On December 5, 2005, he posted, “aids, hurricanes, we are in the end times. accept the LORD JESUS while you can.”

His last post was on January 8, 2006, when he wrote, “THE LORD GIVETH THE LORD TAKETH AWAY,” and “BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.”

http://heavy.com/news/2015/11/robert-le ... edia-bdsm/

the sources are the same as the ones that cite his sexual proclivities. You can't use them to say he can't be religious and then when there's a religious part claim they might not be him. By that token you don't know he was a doper or a womaniser either.

"Some religious belief" is so negligible. There are approximately 7 billion people on the planet. Each individual could have their own "belief system." It can be tied to one thing, an amalgam of many things, or it could be based on the voices in one's head. Mr. Dear appears to be of the latter sort.

True, but he's not just one of 7 billion humans. He is (I believe) also one of about 2.4 billion people who profess to be Christians. I know full well that in your opinion very few of them actually are "true" Christians, but the reality is - whether you like it or not - not everyone interprets the Bible in the same way you. If they did, it would be a single sect religion with little need for "instruction". Between the "true" Christian and the non-believer is a spectrum of belief.

Agreed re "we will see," but I like my chances. I believe you have place too much faith in some invisible faith you see in Dear that is not evident.

Apart from his appearing to have shouted about it on the internet, lived in places with religious items and quotes, and having been reported as lauding a Christian terrorist group, there is not much evidence yet that his terrorism is about him acting on a religious view of abortion. But what there is stacks up a lot higher than the hazelnuts.

And even if the marijuana was an influence on his behaviour or made him act less rationally, the leaf is not itself the source of his views, just a catalyst at most.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:His "statements on the Internet?" Do you mean statements he wrote somewhere or what has been attributed to him? (Note: when one does not understand another, asking a question to clarify is the right thing to do).

You've seen the same articles we have.

The account attributed to him on cannabis.com (which would be consistent, no?) used the site to make posts about religion. Is it proven in a court of law that it is his? No. Does it seem likely that it is based on the use of the same name and location he was living in at the time, and that he likes cannabis? It does to me.

Dear first posted about religion on October 3, 2005, when he replied to a thread titled, “Jesus was a fraud.” He wrote, “u wont like hell , jesus is the only hope. satan has blinded u little demon.”

On October 7, he wrote, “turn to Jesus or burn in hell. Wake up sinners u cant save yourself u will die an worms shall eat your flesh, now your soul is going somewhere.”

He also posted several times in the next few weeks different variations of “Every knee shall bow an tongue confess Jesus is lord in this world or the next.”

Dear wrote that “herb” was created by God, so man’s laws against the drug are against God. He also ranted against women, posting, “god made the woman out of the mans side sorry but womans lib cant change it.”

On December 5, 2005, he posted, “aids, hurricanes, we are in the end times. accept the LORD JESUS while you can.”

His last post was on January 8, 2006, when he wrote, “THE LORD GIVETH THE LORD TAKETH AWAY,” and “BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.”

http://heavy.com/news/2015/11/robert-le ... edia-bdsm/

That was an intense year, I guess. Okay, actually a few months--of a full lifetime. The parable of the soils comes to mind. Plenty of people profess Christ, seem to blossom, then fall away.

the sources are the same as the ones that cite his sexual proclivities. You can't use them to say he can't be religious and then when there's a religious part claim they might not be him. By that token you don't know he was a doper or a womaniser either.

Um, really?

There is a LOT more evidence for both of those. But, whatever. You can put your faith wherever you'd like.

"Some religious belief" is so negligible. There are approximately 7 billion people on the planet. Each individual could have their own "belief system." It can be tied to one thing, an amalgam of many things, or it could be based on the voices in one's head. Mr. Dear appears to be of the latter sort.

True, but he's not just one of 7 billion humans. He is (I believe) also one of about 2.4 billion people who profess to be Christians. I know full well that in your opinion very few of them actually are "true" Christians, but the reality is - whether you like it or not - not everyone interprets the Bible in the same way you. If they did, it would be a single sect religion with little need for "instruction". Between the "true" Christian and the non-believer is a spectrum of belief.

It's not a matter of how I interpret the Bible. It really is as simple as this: what did Jesus say? Doesn't He get to define Christianity?

(Matt. 7:13-14) "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

If you want to discount Him, you can say there are billions of Christians right now.

Agreed re "we will see," but I like my chances. I believe you have place too much faith in some invisible faith you see in Dear that is not evident.

Apart from his appearing to have shouted about it on the internet, lived in places with religious items and quotes, and having been reported as lauding a Christian terrorist group, there is not much evidence yet that his terrorism is about him acting on a religious view of abortion. But what there is stacks up a lot higher than the hazelnuts.

One year wherein he occasionally spouted off on the Internet, one cross, some scribbling, etc., and you want to make him out as a Christian--without any church involvement, without any ability to hold a job or act normally in any way that we've seen. Again, based on my years of dealing with derelicts like Mr. Dear, I like my chances.

And even if the marijuana was an influence on his behaviour or made him act less rationally, the leaf is not itself the source of his views, just a catalyst at most.

Actually, I think it warped his mind. Chronic use does that.

Just wait until you read what the psych experts say. I think you'll be singing a new tune--and it won't be Amazing Grace.

"in truth, there was only one Christian and he died on the cross."--Friedrich Nietszche