Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[Roy]

Equally certain - the DoI does refer to a creator and ultimate judge of the world ... so, regardless of which god might be referred to by the authors, there is a religious component to the document. Denying the fact doesn't improve the chances of being deemed credible.

I'll bear that in mind if I ever see anyone deny that fact.

[Mountain Man]

I just did. You even quoted it.

Sorry, kiddo, it's not referring to a deist god since it explicitly refers to "the Supreme Judge of the world" and appeals to "the protection of Divine Providence", neither of which describe the hands-off "watchmaker god" of deism.

And the God of Judaism is ... wait for it, wait for it ... the God of Christianity!

This, my friend, is what is commonly referred to as an "own goal".

So I ask again, if it's not referring to the Christian God then which other "god" could it possibly be referring to?

Look, son, there's no shame in conceding the match when you're so far behind that you have no hope of catching up.

[seer]

I suggest you learn the difference between incluenced bysomething, vs being based on it.

The point is Roy the DoI was not written in a vacuum, much of what the founders used, their ideas, came from men like Locke, based on Scripture. Never mind the strong influence the work "Lex Rex" by the Christian writer Samuel Rutherford had on men like Madison: http://liberty-virtue-independence.b...x-law-and.html

You simply can not divorce Christian thought and principles from the DoI and the founding of this nation. Never mind the fact that most states codified Christian prohibitions on certain behaviors into law. Laws against sodomy, adultery, fornication, working on the Sabbath, even blasphemy, to name a few.

[Mountain Man]

You simply can not divorce Christian thought and principles from the DoI and the founding of this nation.

Bingo!

[Roy]

Notice how he bailed on this thread when I pressed him to tell me which other "god" it could possibly be referring to if not the Christian God.

No, I was just engaged elsewhere for the weekend, and didn't post on TWeb at all - as would have been easily discernible from checking my posting history and seeing that I wasn't posting in any thread.

It's not the first time he's embarrassed himself in his often desperate attempts to prove me wrong about something. Just look at his signature where he claims that two non-contradictory statements somehow contradict.

So you still claim Luke's account that "can't be tested" is "bang-on accurate".

You're an idiot.

[Roy]

And the God of Judaism is ... wait for it, wait for it ... the God of Christianity!

This, my friend, is what is commonly referred to as an "own goal".

It certainly is.

[Roy]

The point is Roy the DoI was not written in a vacuum, much of what the founders used, their ideas, came from men like Locke, based on Scripture. Never mind the strong influence the work "Lex Rex" by the Christian writer Samuel Rutherford had on men like Madison: http://liberty-virtue-independence.b...x-law-and.html

You simply can not divorce Christian thought and principles from the DoI and the founding of this nation.

Are you going to help MM out by quoting the passage from the DoI that specifically/explicitly references the god of Christianity?

If not, I'm not interested in anything you write.

[Mountain Man]

So you still claim Luke's account that "can't be tested" is "bang-on accurate".

Not what I said at all, you moron... just read your own signature!

[Roy]

So you still claim Luke's account that "can't be tested" is "bang-on accurate".

Not what I said at all, you moron... just read your own signature!

It most certainly was:

"[Glenn Miller's essay] has more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when."

"...there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census which has a number of plausible solutions but is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence."

[Mountain Man]

And the God of Judaism is ... wait for it, wait for it ... the God of Christianity!

This, my friend, is what is commonly referred to as an "own goal".

It certainly is.

You know what's fun about debating you? Someone can prove you wrong, and you'll indignantly shout, "That's right! That's exactly what I'm saying!"

It's rather hilarious, actually. I hope you don't change.

[Mountain Man]

It most certainly was:

"[Glenn Miller's essay] has more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when."

"...there are historical points on which the Bible can't be tested for one reason or another, for instance, cases where the data is incomplete, such as the Lukan census which has a number of plausible solutions but is, at worst, untestable due to a lack of conclusive evidence."

So it's untestable at worst but still has more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when.

I can't believe you still haven't wrapped your head around this nuance.

[Roy]

So it's untestable at worst but still has more than enough facts and data to support the conclusion that Luke's history was bang-on accurate with regards to who conducted the census and when.

So who did conduct the census, and when?

Why do you think Miller's essay supports the conclusion that Luke was "bang-on accurate" when Miller himself reached a different conclusion?

How can Luke's account be bang-on accurate when it has a number of plausible solutions?

Why did you provide two completely different solutions both as being correct?

If Luke's account is only untestable at worst why did you say it couldn't be tested?

These questions will never be answered.

I can't believe you still haven't wrapped your head around this nuance.

I can believe that you think it helps you, even though it doesn't.

[Mountain Man]

So who did conduct the census, and when?

Why do you think Miller's essay supports the conclusion that Luke was "bang-on accurate" when Miller himself reached a different conclusion?

How can Luke's account be bang-on accurate when it has a number of plausible solutions?

Why did you provide two completely different solutions both as being correct?

If Luke's account is only untestable at worst why did you say it couldn't be tested?

These questions will never be answered.

I can believe that you think it helps you, even though it doesn't.

If you don't mind, I'll just leave you twisting in the wind on this one.

[Roy]

If you don't mind, I'll just leave you twisting in the wind on this one.

Clean-up on King's bishop 3.

[Mountain Man]

This is like watching someone repeatedly run face first into a wall... the longer it goes, the funnier it gets.