That is precisely where our nation and more specifically contemporary Christians in America have dropped the ball IMO.

 

That is also one of the primary reasons you and I butt heads so often on here. What you see as improbable, backward or even ignorant, I view as sound reasoning based upon both evidence and faith.

 

Our worldviews are quite different... yours being more contemporary, mine being more traditional.

 

I personally do not think much of the change we have initiated has been for the better.

 

I welcome your disagreement.

 

What is it that I see as "improbable, backward, or even ignorant"?

Well, I should first say that I believe that humans were deliberately given the ability to use logic and reason to sort out and understand the myriad problems and unique questions encountered in life. It is why I understand the Bible not as an exhaustive list of do’s and don’ts but a broader explanation to which humans are given the equipment to adapt to those specific problems and questions mentioned earlier. As far as the “can’t imagine” part, it was a commentary on my observations of political Christians who invoke the religion, for instance, as a justification for American exceptionalism at the expense of natural rights or equity. I wouldn’t expect many modern Christians, specifically evangelicals, to agree with Jefferson’s writing above. And that isn’t to say I find anything wrong with evangelicals.

I don't get really understand what you are saying. I agree with most of what you say (humans deliberately given logic & reason, political views [especially foreign policy] backed up solely by religious claims [especially those from revelation] and the intricacies/problems of that), but it still doesn't clear up what I originally thought you meant.

 

When you said "I personally couldn't imagine a Christian in government today lauding natural rights as from God and including liberty and the capacity to reason as part of the faith." I thought you were implying that liberty and the capacity to reason could not be part of the faith. Did I misunderstand?

What is it that I see as "improbable, backward, or even ignorant"?

I'm afraid I'm guilty to interpreting your comments very much the same way CCH did...

When you said "I personally couldn't imagine a Christian in government today lauding natural rights as from God and including liberty and the capacity to reason as part of the faith." I thought you were implying that liberty and the capacity to reason could not be part of the faith. Did I misunderstand?

Perhaps you could clear this up for us?

I don't get really understand what you are saying. I agree with most of what you say (humans deliberately given logic & reason, political views [especially foreign policy] backed up solely by religious claims [especially those from revelation] and the intricacies/problems of that), but it still doesn't clear up what I originally thought you meant.

 

When you said "I personally couldn't imagine a Christian in government today lauding natural rights as from God and including liberty and the capacity to reason as part of the faith." I thought you were implying that liberty and the capacity to reason could not be part of the faith. Did I misunderstand?

 

I think so. I'm saying they are part of the faith to me, but I don't think many would agree with me. At least not those in politics.

I think so. I'm saying they are part of the faith to me, but I don't think many would agree with me. At least not those in politics.

I don't think I agree with that. Of course I agree that reason and logic are part of the faith to me, but I'd say most people have that as well. Aside from that, I know many people who say "I don't entirely understand it, but I believe there has to be some reason behind it." I'm not sure whether that supports your claim or mine :lol: To me, it means people think there is a logical explanation for why they believe the things they do, just they haven't wrapped their mind around it.

 

Anyways, I don't necessarily agree that a lot of people don't believe reason is a part of faith. As for politicians thinking that way, I can't imagine they would either. But I understand what you are getting at- when people make arguments in political debate such as "the Bible says so", that doesn't mean squat to a non-believer or someone who thinks the Bible and government should have nothing to do with each other (right or wrong). And even further on that point- if you can support something in the Bible by logic, then maybe it is one of those things in the Bible that wasn't meant to be taken literally- but rather as a guidepost for us. Which is what you said earlier. And the part about "not taking the Bible literally" is the part that you said earlier about evangelicals not agreeing with. I think we need another thread- who knows what title though (this has too many tangents)

 

In conclusion, I think I understand and agree with most of what you are saying. :lol: I just don't agree with your premise that reason and logic aren't a part of most people's faith.

^This really does need to be another thread at this point. :lol: I still think you are misunderstanding me, but it might take me a while (a few hours? :lol:) to flesh out exactly what it is I mean.

 

As far as this thread goes, suffice it to say I don't believe that most politicians who court the religious vote would agree with what Jefferson wrote above.

^This really does need to be another thread at this point. :lol: I still think you are misunderstanding me, but it might take me a while (a few hours? :lol:) to flesh out exactly what it is I mean.

 

As far as this thread goes, suffice it to say I don't believe that most politicians who court the religious vote would agree with what Jefferson wrote above.

 

 

I'm not entirely certain that they would even understand it.

 

They don't write 'em like they used to.

I personally couldn't imagine a Christian in government today lauding natural rights as from God and including liberty and the capacity to reason as part of the faith.

 

And yet, isn't that what TJ did when he said used the term Creator in the Declaration?

Could you explain this further?

 

And yet, isn't that what TJ did when he said used the term Creator in the Declaration?

 

Here we go:

 

As to the “can’t imagine” comment, I mean to say that I can’t imagine one who wears their religion on their sleeve in Washington or on the campaign trail today echoing thinkers like Jefferson who called for government to respect natural rights, which they argued were from God, or “endowed by their Creator.” In other words, while both groups are religious, I think those who shout the loudest about religion today would also be more likely to oppose the universality of natural rights.

Here we go:

 

As to the “can’t imagine” comment, I mean to say that I can’t imagine one who wears their religion on their sleeve in Washington or on the campaign trail today echoing thinkers like Jefferson who called for government to respect natural rights, which they argued were from God, or “endowed by their Creator.” In other words, while both groups are religious, I think those who shout the loudest about religion today would also be more likely to oppose the universality of natural rights.

 

Are you saying that they a) wouldn't be on the campaign trail because they would not be electable; b) Christians don't believe that God gives natural rights across the board?

Are you saying that they a) wouldn't be on the campaign trail because they would not be electable; b) Christians don't believe that God gives natural rights across the board?

 

Certainly not "a", they have been successful appealing to the religious. Perhaps it would be more fair to word it as such: I don't think many Christian politicians (politicans who are also Christian) today echo the argument that liberty is God granted.

Certainly not "a", they have been successful appealing to the religious. Perhaps it would be more fair to word it as such: I don't think many Christian politicians (politicans who are also Christian) today echo the argument that liberty is God granted.

 

Still not sure exactly what you are trying to say.

 

Bush the son said several times that freedom is the right of everyone on this planet and the USA would work towards bringing freedom (is that what you are meaning by liberty?) to all.