freeborn | ἐλεύθερος on Nostr: This misrepresents my argument and Christian theism as well. Speaking "on the ...

This misrepresents my argument and Christian theism as well.
Speaking "on the horizontal plane" means that, in dealings between man and man, God (the highest authority) has given me life and no one else (being of lesser authority than the giver) has the right to take it away. The basis of morality is the moral law of God--which presupposes both individuality as well as private property. The idea of civil rights and liberties are simply the flip side of all the "thou shalt nots" in the 'second table' of the law. This is simply the natural law that is written on our hearts (some call it 'conscience'), and revealed even more clearly in the 10 Commandments. It's precisely because our rights come from a higher authority that no one of lower authority can lawfully take them away.
Yes, "on the vertical plane" all are dependent on God for their very existence (would you claim absolute self-reliance? how are you keeping the sun in its course?), and it is true we have no rights before him--although we can (and do) plead his promises. And, our interests DO matter greatly: Christ came "that we may have life, and have it more abundantly." Psalm 16:11 reads, "In his presence is fullness of joy; at his right hand are pleasures forevermore." Further, classical Protestant teaching is that "The chief and highest end of man is to glorify God *and fully to enjoy him* forever." His glory; our joy.
Gnosticism does not teach the supremacy of each individual self, but of the One primordial Self from whom we all were alienated by becoming individuals in the first place; shards of divinity scattered into the many, and thus they call us to remember that "we together are God" and so we must be One again--by becoming Communist. Rothbard was relentless on this principle, so was Voegelin. (For an excellent survey read Rothbard's Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought--he does not shy away from the crucial part that religion has played. It's free online at Mises.org.) It's a worldview ultimately derived from a monist metaphysic - what Peter Jones has called "Oneism," fundamentally incompatible with the "Twoism" of Christianity: Creator and creation.
Before criticizing Christian theism further, I would urge you to gain a better understanding of it. It is not fatalism, there is no 'puppeteering,' nor could it ever be conflated with gnosticism (or Gnosticism either). Read the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism. You will understand a bit better what we actually believe. Of course, Scripture itself is always the primary source of understanding, and the final arbiter.
But even if you don't understand or agree with our "why" (and yes, it is religious) -- for a civil society to exist, we don't necessarily need to agree on the source of our individual rights, provided we protect them shoulder-to-shoulder against all who would seek to alienate us from them.