In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[PeterS]

You can't have freedom without structure.

And God doesn't prevent people from doing what they will.

That's because he can't.

 

[PeterS]

One could argue that they don't follow the true God, which is the problem.

It's not just any God. Human rights come from I Am, and I'd say Allah is not he.

Argue what you like but your opinion is not more valid then there opinion is it.

 

[PeterS]

But answer this...would you rather have human rights dictated by the strictures of God or by the strictures of a corrupt government...which changes from time to time depending on the quality of the people who run it?

I would rather they be dictated by human reason as that is the only way they have any meaning.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If I were a Christian I would do as Christ did and submit. If I were an atheist or secular-humanist I would exercise my natural right to self defense and defend my family and myself.

Christ had a very specific purpose for submitting to the crucifixion. That being to die on that cross and in so doing pay for your and my sins; sacrificing his own Innocent life, so that we, the guilty, could join with the father. An act he knowingly accepted, thus the gift which is at the core of the good news that we are all since worthy of salvation; which absent his incomprehensible sacrifice would be impossible.


It's remarkable to me that you're standing on some heretofore unheard of notion that there is a secular 'natural right' to self defense. There are few more secular nations than the UK and that nation has completely rinsed from its culture any notion that the individual has a right to defend their life against unjustified attack. Should a subject find themselves having taken action in defense of their own life or that of another which resulted in the injury or death of the assailent, they will most certainly be prosecuted by 'The People' of Great Britain for their having taken 'offensive action' against another person. The same is true in Australia where they have, as is the case in the UK determined that the individual citizen does NOT possess the right to own and use.a fire arm in defense oh their life or that of another.

So it is clear that in those two MOST secular nations that the right to defend one's life is Not a right at all; in those secular states 'the people,' have determined that it is the responsibility of the the state to determine what life will be protected and if you or your family is killed or severely injured, well that's tough for you; 'you should have been more careful.'

Now how is it rights can only exist if there is a god?

God's authority is beyond that of 'The People' (read: the state] thus rights endowed by the creator are not subject to popular whimsy, as such was realized in the opening scenario...

The rights inherent from God rest on perfect reason and are thus timeless and stand uneffected by the idiocy of mankind.

 

[PeterS]

Christ had a very specific purpose for submitting to the crucifixion. That being to die on that cross and in so doing pay for your and my sins; sacrificing his own Innocent life, so that we, the guilty, could join with the father. An act he knowingly accepted, thus the gift which is at the core of the good news that we are all since worthy of salvation; which absent his incomprehensible sacrifice would be impossible.

So your assertion is that Christ would kill an attacker save for his “specific purpose?” Which one of Christ sermons do you base this reasoning?

It's remarkable to me that you're standing on some heretofore unheard of notion that there is a secular 'natural right' to self defense.

The only way for a law to be natural is if it is secular otherwise it would be a very unnatural law predicated by a supernatural god.

There are few more secular nations that the UK and that nation has completely rinsed from its culture any notion that the individual has a right to defend their life against unjustified attack. Should a subject find themselves having taken action in defense of their own life or that of another which resulted in the injury or death of the assailent, they will most certainly be prosecuted by 'The
People oh Great Britain for their having taken offensive action against another person. The same is true in Australia where they have, as is the case in the UK determined that the individual citizen does NOT possess the right to own and use.a fire arm in defense oh their life or that of another.

So it is clear

You just blew a load of smoke out your butt. Just how is it you see that a "clear?"

God's authority is beyond that of 'The People' (read: the state] thus rights endowed by the creator are not subject to popular whimsy, OVA Solutions as that realized in the opening scenario...

I give no authority to any god so how can it be beyond me?

The rights inherent from God rest on perfect reason and zer this timeless and stand ineffected by the idiocy of mankind.

The rights bestowed by a supernatural god are interpreted by natural Man. How can gods reasoning be perfect if it is delivered by a very imperfect Man?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Christ had a very specific purpose for submitting to the crucifixion; that being to die on that cross and in so doing pay for your and my sins; sacrificing his own Innocent life, so that we, the guilty, could join with the father. An act he knowingly accepted, thus the gift which is at the core of the good news that we are all since worthy of salvation; which absent his incomprehensible sacrifice would be impossible.

So your assertion is that Christ would kill an attacker save for his “specific purpose?” Which one of Christ sermons do you base this reasoning?

Golly... So you feel that Christ is just some mindless pushover? Some type of 'Welcome' mat for anyone that desires to spit on his followers to freely walk upon or otherwise injure?

That's an interesting notion given that Christ's only purpose for coming to Earth as a human being was to place himself into an incomprehensible torture; to a prolonged mind bending agony; having committed no crime against God or man... because he wanted to pay the price of man's sin... HE did this because humanity could never overcome their frailties, given that every human being on earth is a sinner and as such can never enter the Kingdom of heaven... So this pushover you've built up in your head, stood up and said 'I'll take the hit... I'll suffer their penalty, so they can come with me to the house of my Father...'

The question remains, would Christ harm someone that seeks to harm an innocent and is there any evidence of Christ taking offensive action to defend the weak from injury or death?

First, I'd advance that Christ stood up for the whole of humanity and protected us all from the certainty of everlasting damnation...

Second, where he saw the temple being used for purposes other than worship, he realized that this behavior was an offense that prevented the weak, the innocent, the poor from entering the temple and stood up to run the money changers out of the temple.

Third, when discussing the consequences of those that would harm a child... he responded that those who harm children will realize a fate that would make being crushed from head to toe by a giant millstone preferable to what they've got coming...

And finally Christ has said that any that does not turn to him, that does not accept his gift, will not enter the kingdom of heaven and will be sentenced at judgment to spend eternity in the agony...

Now friend... Do not confuse the generosity and love of Christ with any thoughts that he is a door mat for humanity to walk upon. A guy that will willingly take on a torturous crucifixion in defense of his brother, knowing his brother is guilty and deserves every BIT of it... is not the guy that you want to misjudge as a fool; he's not the guy that you should test; because THAT GUY is ALL ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY!

Read Revelations and you'll see that when Christ returns... he will be coming here to clean house; the good news will be out and there will be nothing but bad news for those remaining behind and the phrase 'bad news' doesn't really relay the whole story, but it's as close as two words can get.

So yeah... I'd say that Christ would must definitely have no problem destroying a human being who was determined to knowingly harm an innocent.

It's remarkable to me that you're standing on some heretofore unheard of notion that there is a secular 'natural right' to self defense.

The only way for a law to be natural is if it is secular otherwise it would be a very unnatural law predicated by a supernatural god.

You're intentionally trying to blur the distinction between secular humanism and 'secular'... Natural Law is founded directly upon the premise of Nature's God... it is secular in the context that it is non-denominational... resting upon religious principle that God exists, that God is the ultimate authority in the universe and all lower forms of life are subservient to God, but is absent specific denominational doctrine. Secular; as in a secular government, where God is recognized as the ultimate authority but governance rests upon religious principle, but does not hinge and is not executed upon the doctrine of any given denomination.

Secular Humanism displaces God as the high authority; rejecting God on the whole and resting on the idiocy that humanity is the high authority. The Opening Scenario is illustrative of the folly of such 'feelings' and proves that 'human rights' are not a viable concept within the scope of secular humanism.

Rights founded in Secular Humanism will and MUST change as the popular whimsy of humanity changes; thus what was your 'right' yesterday is no longer a 'right' today... and Peter, that means that what you THOUGHT was a 'right' yesterday was NEVER A RIGHT... it was at BEST a privilege which 'the people' allowed due to whatever rationalization is rattling around at any given time.

It's remarkable to me that you're standing on some heretofore unheard of notion that there is a secular 'natural right' to self defense. There are few more secular nations than the UK and that nation has completely rinsed from its culture any notion that the individual has a right to defend their life against unjustified attack. Should a subject find themselves having taken action in defense of their own life or that of another which resulted in the injury or death of the assailant, they will most certainly be prosecuted by 'The People' of Great Britain for their having taken 'offensive action' against another person. The same is true in Australia where they have, as is the case in the UK determined that the individual citizen does NOT possess the right to own and use of a fire arm in defense of their life or that of another.

So it is clear that in those two MOST secular nations that the right to defend one's life is Not a right at all; in those secular states 'the people,' have determined that it is the responsibility of the the state to determine what life will be protected and if you or your family is killed or severely injured, well that's tough for you; 'you should have been more careful.'

You just blew a load of smoke out your butt. Just how is it you see that a "clear?"

LOL... Wonderful avoidance... It was almost like you were trying to advance a lucid, cogent thought but simply weren't able to pull one out...

God's authority is beyond that of 'The People' (read: the state] thus rights endowed by the creator are not subject to popular whimsy, such as that realized in the opening scenario...

I give no authority to any god so how can it be beyond me?

ROFLMNAO... MAN! Wouldn't it be cool if that is all you had to do to avoid the authority of God (or any power for that matter) and the final accounting? I mean there ya are... standing before your creator; your life is accounted for and your defense is something less than feeble; your judgment certain and bleak... and right where God is about to wisp you into everlasting damnation, you just look him right in the eye and tell him STRAIGHT UP!:

"Hey BUDDY, I haven't given you any authority to judge or sentence me to anything! So just what the hell are you talking about?"

Of course ultimate power being what it is and all... his response would likely be: "This one... (snap)" and you're next instance of sentience finds you swirling in incomprehensible agony and torment... in total darkness and utterly alone... forever.

You see sport, power doesn't need a right to hold authority over you... IT HAS POWER. Thus the basis of the US Constitution which rests upon the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence wherein the principle that Nature's God has endowed humanity with unalienable rights which predate humanity and human power... Rights which rest upon the ultimate authority of God himself... thus the US Constitution's sole function is to eclipse the certainty of governmental power to usurp the inherent God given natural rights of man...

The rights inherent from God rest on perfect reason and are thus timeless and stand unaffected by the idiocy of mankind.

The rights bestowed by a supernatural god are interpreted by natural Man. How can gods reasoning be perfect if it is delivered by a very imperfect Man?

Again you're confusing the perfection inherent in the reasoning with the imperfection of the inference drawn from it... in point of fact there is no potential correlation between the perfection of the reasoning advanced by God and the imperfection that mankind (such as secular humanists) will inevitably construct through they're desperate rationalizations designed to circumnavigate that perfection.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't think you can prove it, it's not really provable or unprovable either way. It's just a philosophy. Can you prove a philosophy correct or incorrect? Not really.

Fair enough, I won't argue with that.

If it's someone's belief then far be it from me to attack it.

But I'll continue to defend my position - vigorously

 

[Diuretic]

Christ had a very specific purpose for submitting to the crucifixion. That being to die on that cross and in so doing pay for your and my sins; sacrificing his own Innocent life, so that we, the guilty, could join with the father. An act he knowingly accepted, thus the gift which is at the core of the good news that we are all since worthy of salvation; which absent his incomprehensible sacrifice would be impossible.


It's remarkable to me that you're standing on some heretofore unheard of notion that there is a secular 'natural right' to self defense. There are few more secular nations than the UK and that nation has completely rinsed from its culture any notion that the individual has a right to defend their life against unjustified attack. Should a subject find themselves having taken action in defense of their own life or that of another which resulted in the injury or death of the assailent, they will most certainly be prosecuted by 'The People' of Great Britain for their having taken 'offensive action' against another person. The same is true in Australia where they have, as is the case in the UK determined that the individual citizen does NOT possess the right to own and use.a fire arm in defense oh their life or that of another.

So it is clear that in those two MOST secular nations that the right to defend one's life is Not a right at all; in those secular states 'the people,' have determined that it is the responsibility of the the state to determine what life will be protected and if you or your family is killed or severely injured, well that's tough for you; 'you should have been more careful.'



God's authority is beyond that of 'The People' (read: the state] thus rights endowed by the creator are not subject to popular whimsy, as such was realized in the opening scenario...

The rights inherent from God rest on perfect reason and are thus timeless and stand uneffected by the idiocy of mankind.

I'm going to have to take you on here Pub. The laws of self defence in Australia are located in state/territory law and they do exit. The laws of self defence don't mention firearms.

The possession and use of firearms in Australia is also controlled at the state/territory level. Some weapons have been prohibited and while I might agree that it's sensible to prohibit a fully automatic weapon I vehemently disagree with the prohibition (forced on the states by a conservative federal government) on gas-operated or slide operated s/auto shotguns and the prohibition on large magazines in s/auto rifles. Handguns aren't prohibited, there are requirements before a private citizen can own one though.

 

[PeterS]

The question remains, would Christ harm someone that seeks to harm an innocent and is there any evidence of Christ taking offensive action to defend the weak from injury or death?

No, the question remains would Christ kill as a matter of self defense. Read your original diatribe to which I framed my original answer.

First, I'd advance that Christ stood up for the whole of humanity and protected us all from the certainty of everlasting damnation...

Unless you have a proof of the existence of hell, damnation isn’t certain. What is your proof?

Second, where he saw the temple being used for purposes other than worship, he realized that this behavior was an offense that prevented the weak, the innocent, the poor from entering the temple and stood up to run the money changers out of the temple.

Christ didn’t kill anyone nor, in fact, did he even harm anyone. How are you construing this as an intent to kill as a matter of self defense under natural law?

Third, when discussing the consequences of those that would harm a child... he responded that those who harm children will realize a fate that would make being crushed from head to toe by a giant millstone preferable to what they've got coming...

But Christ isn’t causing this action nor is this a defense of life. This is like saying that executing a child killer defends the slain child. It doesn’t, but in fact shows a failure to defend.

And finally Christ has said that any that does not turn to him, that does not accept his gift, will not enter the kingdom of heaven and will be sentenced at judgment to spend eternity in the agony

How does this correlate to the right of self defense or that Christ would kill as a matter of self defense? In fact, if you go back to your original diatribe you now have Christ as the persecutor killing purely because someone has a different belief. This now begs the question, by whose law, Man or gods, do we have a natural right to self defense against the tyrant Christ?

You're intentionally trying to blur the distinction between secular humanism and 'secular'

Actually you are the only one blurring anything. A secular priest ministers to all denominations. A secular priest who legislates his beliefs over all acts in a sectarian not secular manor. You do not understand the difference between secularism in religion and secularism in government. The two are not the same...

Secular Humanism displaces God as the high authority; rejecting God on the whole and resting on the idiocy that humanity is the high authority.

First, secular humanism doesn’t reject god. It can’t. Secular humanism is based on reason and there exists no logical or empirical argument for or against the existence of god. Second, freedom is based on the principle of the individual as their own sovereign. This is only idiocy if you think the Founders intended us to live in tyranny. Did they?

Rights founded in Secular Humanism will and MUST change as the popular whimsy of humanity changes;

I take it you have never read Leviticus. Is your position that gods law remains unchanged? There are those who would like to make it so. I believe we call them terrorists. Are we wrong?

The Opening Scenario is illustrative of the folly of such 'feelings' and proves that 'human rights' are not a viable concept within the scope of secular humanism.

Again, since you paint Christ as a tyrant out to kill based based on how individuals believe it would seem the only way for human rights to exist is by Man and not god.

Would you care to go on???

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm going to have to take you on here Pub. The laws of self defence in Australia are located in state/territory law and they do exit. The laws of self defence don't mention firearms.

The possession and use of firearms in Australia is also controlled at the state/territory level. Some weapons have been prohibited and while I might agree that it's sensible to prohibit a fully automatic weapon I vehemently disagree with the prohibition (forced on the states by a conservative federal government) on gas-operated or slide operated s/auto shotguns and the prohibition on large magazines in s/auto rifles. Handguns aren't prohibited, there are requirements before a private citizen can own one though.

LOL... Color me shocked... but before I begin, I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration which you've invested in your response... Now with that said: "What pray tell would these would-be conservatives be 'conserving'?"

The simple fact is Big D, that Australia is on the same rack as the UK; the ownership and use of a firearm in Australia is flat on the way OUT and the secular humanists running Australia will flat tell you that you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO USE A FIRE ARM IN DEFENSE OF YOUR LIFE... As a matter of fact, that is exactly what your Prime Minister said when he was busy disarming you people.

Sure, there are various categories of fire arms, that a citizen of Australia may be able to own, assuming that one can acquire the licenses... and the 5% of Australians who have managed to do so tends towards the suggestion that it's not as simple as some might suggest it otherwise would be...

The ownership of a fire arm wouldn't do much for a person needing to defend their life in Australia even if they needed it; given that part and parcel of getting that license is the requirement that the fire arm be locked in a safe where there can be no ammunition...

Now for those that believe that with only 5% of Australians legally owning guns in Australia that violent crime in Australia MUST be way down... you're dead wrong... since the disarming of the Australian public, violent crime is up and rising...

In just one year after the 1997 ban:
Australia-wide, homicides were up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults were up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%

http://johnrlott.tripod.com

Since the ban there has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of Australia's senior citizens.

In the first year after the ban the membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association rose 200% to 112,000 in response to the ban in an attempt to organize against further controls, which were expected and realized... it's now illegal to own a sword, a laser pointer and yes even the TOY GUN is banned from the once ruggedly independent Aussie...

Now ten years hence, with violent crime steadily on the rise, Australian politicians have no means to explain why there is no improvement in "public safety" since they conned a sheepish citizenry into spending a half a billion dollars to disarm the law abiding Australian public... they're response is that they need more time to get the guns out of the hands of criminals... which is hilarious given that they've been trying to get the guns out of the hands of criminals since THE FIRST DAY THE FIRST CRIMINAL GOT HIS HANDS ON HIS FIRST GUN... well BEFORE they usurped the unalienable right of the law abiding Australian to protect his life and property through the ownership and use of a firearm.

In point of fact, if an Australian citizen harms a person who illegally invades their home or tries to rob them of their belongings, they will be prosecuted by the Australian government for having taken offensive violence against that criminal... the notion that an Australian has a right to defend his life and property amounts to nothing more than 'the color of right'.

In reality, IF the Australian people recognized the natural right to life and the inherent duty to defend innocent life, they would never have even considered banning the most effective means of doing so; the ownership, training and use of a firearm.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If I had a firearm I'd shoot the bastards.

But this is truly bizarre.

Human rights are human invention. As is God. So it looks like humans are an inventive lot.

We invented God. We invented human rights.

That's so that someone could one day come along and say God gave us human rights and we could fight about it on an internet forum

True. God or no God, Human Rights, by definition, are human. Human to give and human to deny.

-Joe

 

[Diuretic]

LOL... Color me shocked... but before I begin, I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration which you've invested in your response... Now with that said: "What pray tell would these would-be conservatives be 'conserving'?"

The simple fact is Big D, that Australia is on the same rack as the UK; the ownership and use of a firearm in Australia is flat on the way OUT and the secular humanists running Australia will flat tell you that you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO USE A FIRE ARM IN DEFENSE OF YOUR LIFE... As a matter of fact, that is exactly what your Prime Minister said when he was busy disarming you people.

Sure, there are various categories of fire arms, that a citizen of Australia may be able to own, assuming that one can acquire the licenses... and the 5% of Australians who have managed to do so tends towards the suggestion that it's not as simple as some might suggest it otherwise would be...

The ownership of a fire arm wouldn't do much for a person needing to defend their life in Australia even if they needed it; given that part and parcel of getting that license is the requirement that the fire arm be locked in a safe where there can be no ammunition...

Now for those that believe that with only 5% of Australians legally owning guns in Australia that violent crime in Australia MUST be way down... you're dead wrong... since the disarming of the Australian public, violent crime is up and rising...

In just one year after the 1997 ban:
Australia-wide, homicides were up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults were up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%

http://johnrlott.tripod.com

Since the ban there has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of Australia's senior citizens.

In the first year after the ban the membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association rose 200% to 112,000 in response to the ban in an attempt to organize against further controls, which were expected and realized... it's now illegal to own a sword, a laser pointer and yes even the TOY GUN is banned from the once ruggedly independent Aussie...

Now ten years hence, with violent crime steadily on the rise, Australian politicians have no means to explain why there is no improvement in "public safety" since they conned a sheepish citizenry into spending a half a billion dollars to disarm the law abiding Australian public... they're response is that they need more time to get the guns out of the hands of criminals... which is hilarious given that they've been trying to get the guns out of the hands of criminals since THE FIRST DAY THE FIRST CRIMINAL GOT HIS HANDS ON HIS FIRST GUN... well BEFORE they usurped the unalienable right of the law abiding Australian to protect his life and property through the ownership and use of a firearm.

In point of fact, if an Australian citizen harms a person who illegally invades their home or tries to rob them of their belongings, they will be prosecuted by the Australian government for having taken offensive violence against that criminal... the notion that an Australian has a right to defend his life and property amounts to nothing more than 'the color of right'.

In reality, IF the Australian people recognized the natural right to life and the inherent duty to defend innocent life, they would never have even considered banning the most effective means of doing so; the ownership, training and use of a firearm.

Just a couple of points. Firstly, the statistics. A very good independent source for statistics is the Australian Institute of Criminology – Australian Institute of Criminology

This is how things were and are here. Each state and territory has its own firearms laws. Prior to 1996 they were all pretty much different but the easiest state in which to legally acquire a firearm was Tasmania. After the Port Arthur incident the commonwealth governent forced the states to tighten their firearms laws. That was the Howard government at its populist worse.

In self defence anyone here is permitted to use reasonable force to the point of lethal force if needed. The self defence laws of each state differ slightly but that's the guts of it. I can use a firearm, a vehicle, a knife, a bludgeon or whatever to protect me or anyone else from attack and if I kill the attacker then as long as lethal force was necessary I will not be convicted of murder or manslaughter.

You can own a sword here, you just better have a very good reason for carrying it in the street. You can own a laser pointer - I own one, I use it for instructional purposes. There is consideration being given to banning large laser pointers because brain-dead idiots think it's funny to point them at the flight deck of aircraft landing at airports here. The toy gun isn't banned.

Any adult who meets the requirements can own/possess/use a firearm. I used to own a Colt Diamondback. I used to own a Remington shotgun. I have used a number of firearms. Howard's populism removed some firearms such as gas-operated shotguns and semi-auto rifles. Howard pulled a stupid move but he was trading on the public disquiet after Port Arthur. Howard never let a chance go by if it meant he could pull a stunt that would give him kudos.

I think we're lucky in this country because the average person doesn't feel as if they need a firearm in the house to defend themselves from attack.

 

[WhiteLion]

I'll take on anyone on this forum to prove that GOD exist??? open a debate and ill burn you a new back door.... Nothing exist without purpose and nothing exist by accident...Burn baby burn

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The question remains, would Christ harm someone that seeks to harm an innocent and is there any evidence of Christ taking offensive action to defend the weak from injury or death?

No, the question remains would Christ kill as a matter of self defense. Read your original diatribe ...

I wrote it, so ...

The issue is whether or not that as a result of the human right to life; a right endowed by God; a right which comes with the inherent responsibility to defend one's own life as well as those within their sphere of influence… that we as human’s who enjoy that right are bound by that inherent responsibility to maintain that RIGHT. Given your options to engage that argument or avoid it, you sought to derail the discussion by asking a question of what someone NOT present in the discussion would do given the conditions of the Opening Scenario; would Christ kill to defend human life? I stated that Christ has numerous Scriptural examples of taking offensive action... not the least of which is his stated positions wherein his intends to cast secular humanists (such as yourself), among others, into eternal incomprehensible agony for no other reason than your refusal to accept his gift of grace, your rejection of his love and his authority over his universe... Now if he's told you that he is willing to hold YOU and every human being on earth, EVEN THOSE THAT DIDN'T GET THE WORD... accountable for violations of ONE little rule... for which that accountability is eternal damnation… this conclusively establishes more than sufficient EVIDENCE that Christ would take the life of a human being who was determined to seriously injure or strip an innocent of the gift which he endowed upon them, with the intention that THEY EXERCISE and MAINTAIN IT… that they be free to pursue the fulfillment of that life and to do so in such a way that they do not infringe upon the gift he endowed to the OTHER HUMANS… Life. Again… this is not to say that I believe or that I am representing that Christ would EVER take the life of a human being without a valid moral justification… as there is no reason that he would and let’s be honest he is the infinite authority in the universe, so his decision to take a human life would be a valid moral justification, by default; but with that said, it is the duty of every human being to defend innocent life and the taking of a human life in such a defense is a perfect moral justification, as well as a legitimate legal defense… but that serves reason doesn’t it? Where a law rests on valid moral grounds that law serves justice and where a law departs from valid moral grounds, that law cannot serve justice… but that’s another argument for another thread.

Unless you have a proof of the existence of hell, damnation isn’t certain. What is your proof?

ROFL... FANTASTIC ad Ignorantiam... Whether or not I can prove hell exist, has absolutely NO BEARING on the existence of hell; just as whether or not you BELIEVE in hell will have little bearing on whether or not you spend eternity languishing there...

The fact is you've already implied an acceptance of the existence of Christ and his divinity through your erroneous position regarding Christ and his willingness to allow the intentional injury and unjust taking of life of the innocent, projecting the scriptures determined that he would not; thus it does not follow that you can express that Christ exists; that his teachings prove it; that his words reflect truth and reject his words wherein he speaks of the certain existence of hell... In Matthew 7.13-14 Christ said: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 8:12 Christ stated that "... will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth;" and in Matthew 13:42 he against speaks of the certain existence of hell "the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,"

But if you're looking for tangible proof which will give you everything you need to believe it, you'll just have to wait for your passing; on the assumption that you'll pass up, in finality, his gift of grace and fail to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior.

Christ didn’t kill anyone nor, in fact, did he even harm anyone. How are you construing this as an intent to kill as a matter of self defense under natural law?

I'm not construing anything Peter... I'm simply providing evidence that Christ is a stickler for accountability and where a person would in Christ's presence knowingly seek to usurp the gift of life by killing or seriously injure an innocent, Christ would undoubtedly do whatever he had to do to stop them... if that meant taking their life, then there is no reason why he would not; as that is precisely what such a person would deserve. The fact is that knowingly taking the life of an innocent would result in their being set to languish for ETERNITY IN UNSPEAKABLE TORMENT... simply ending their human existence is absolutely NOTHING; wholly meaningless by comparison.

Third, when discussing the consequences of those that would harm a child... he responded that those who harm children will realize a fate that would make being crushed from head to toe by a giant millstone preferable to what they've got coming...

But Christ isn’t causing this action nor is this a defense of life. This is like saying that executing a child killer defends the slain child. It doesn’t, but in fact shows a failure to defend.

Christ isn't causing what? Try to express your point more clearly... Christ stated flat out that he would pursue the persecution of the individual that knowingly harmed an innocent child, through the analogy of grinding that person under a massive grinding stone... crushing their skin and bones from head to toe, while they are still USING THEM.

Christ is not saying that he would stop them... we are all free to do what we will; Christ is saying that for those who CHOOSE to harm a child there is a special place in hell which he has set aside to pay those twisted souls some 'special attention.'

With that said and in point of fact however, 'executing a child offender' does protect a child... just not the child(ren) they've already offended. It's a certainty however, that the executed child offender will not be offending any more children.

And finally Christ has said that any that does not turn to him, those that do not accept his gift, will not enter the kingdom of heaven and will be sentenced at judgment to spend eternity in the agony…

How does this correlate to the right of self defense or that Christ would kill as a matter of self defense?

It speaks to the sacred duty to defend human life, as that life is a sacred gift from the Father. The life was not given by the assailant; the assailant cannot replace it, thus they have no right to take it or to usurp the right of the innocent to pursue the fulfillment of their own life... thus the assailant has in fact, by their offensive unjustifiable actions, failed to meet the inherent responsibilities of the own gift of life, thus forfeiting, by default, the right to their own life. Killing them, assuming such was necessary to stop them from killing you or another in your immediate presence, holds them accountable, just as sending those that failed to meet the threshold of purity otherwise required to be with the Father in heaven; and further rejecting God's grace as earned through Christ’s gift at his crucifixion, to eternal damnation holds humanity accountable for their individual failures.

In fact, if you go back to your original diatribe you now have Christ as the persecutor killing purely because someone has a different belief.

Oh friend... Persecution is not the correct word as it hinges on the basis of the torment being founded upon a belief… God’s reality is not a ‘belief;’ the final accounting is an assessment of the choices you knowingly made in life, minus the supercilious rationalizations you created to justify doing the wrong thing; and that you believe that you do not deserve that accounting, is a dark illusion nurtured by your own limitations… This is God’s universe Peter, you’re given the freedom to make choices and God’s given you everything you need to make the right choices and you are intentionally rejecting those right choices for reasons known only to you; reasons which FYI: will not be a valid defense at your moment of reckoning.

This now begs the question, by whose law, Man or gods, do we have a natural right to self defense against the tyrant Christ?

You've no reason or means to fight Christ sport... God is the ultimate authority and you've two choices... join with the light or spend eternity in a state well beyond 'wishing you had.'

That there is a viable, let alone valid reason to NOT join with the Father; who represents the universal, infinite truth and that you've a means to do so are simple illusions perpetrated by the darkness... they're lies which unfortunately for you, will again, not pass as a valid defense at the final judgment; where, again... a 'differing opinion' is all you need to receive the longest, hardest time, which stands far beyond your means to even imagine.

You're intentionally trying to blur the distinction between secular humanism and 'secular'... Natural Law is founded directly upon the premise of Nature's God... it is secular in the context that it is non-denominational...resting upon religious principle that God exists, that God is the ultimate authority in the universe and all lower forms of life are subservient to God, but is absent specific denominational doctrine. Secular; as in a secular government, where God is recognized as the ultimate authority but governance rests upon religious principle, but does not hinge and is not executed upon the doctrine of any given denomination.

Actually you are the only one blurring anything. A secular priest ministers to all denominations.

That's actually an adherence to what I said...

A secular priest who legislates his beliefs over all acts in a sectarian not secular manor.

Actually Peter... setting aside the cratered syntax… a priest that would legislate his specific religious doctrine would NOT BE A SECULAR PREIST. He'd be a legislator within a form of government known as Theocracy ... where a specific doctrine of Theism (religion) is being applied as law; Islamic Sharia law is a classic example of this.

You do not understand the difference between secularism in religion and secularism in government. The two are not the same...

Let's go to the rhetorical video tape:

Main Entry:1secular
Pronunciation:*se-ky*-l*r
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
Date:14th century

1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal *secular concerns* b : not overtly or specifically religious *secular music* c : not ecclesiastical or clerical *secular courts* *secular landowners*
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically: of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation *a secular priest*
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration
–secularity \*se-ky*-*lar-*-t*\ noun
–secularly \*se-ky*-l*r-l*\ adverb

First, secular humanism doesn’t reject god.

Ya know that's FASCINATING... I mean given the meaning of secular and all...

But we might as well see what that "Big Book O'Words" has to say about the meaning of "Secular Humanism."

Main Entry:secular humanism
Function:noun
Date:1933

: HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion
–secular humanist noun or adjective

It can’t. Secular humanism is based on reason and there exists no logical or empirical argument for or against the existence of god.

ROFL... Well there's nothing antagonistic of Theism there...

God's existence is set in nothing but reason... God IS infinite reason and absent God there can be no reason. As this little argument you're advancing here illustrates brilliantly and this next thesis... ties that conclusion down in finality>>>

Second, freedom is based on the principle of the individual as their own sovereign. This is only idiocy if you think the Founders intended us to live in tyranny. Did they?

First, you declare a contest in which your response inevitably adheres to the very point you declared erroneous; then you claim that Secularism doesn't reject God, only to try and support that through an explanation wherein secularism is said to be 'reason based' while the belief in God is absent reason.... you're entire argument is a rolling non sequitur; not only does your founding premise not follow your conclusion, but your reasoning self cancels its own conclusions... That "freedom is based on the principle of the individual {sovereignty}..." rant is a syntactical train-wreck; it is absolutely indecipherable; if there is a point at all to be had from it, your reasoning has managed to leave anyone of reason absolutely incapable of discerning what it might be...

But just to be able to say that I said it succinctly… There is no potential tyranny in the love of the Father… you’ll get exactly what you deserve to get. That you ‘feel’ you do not deserve it is simply more evidence of the darkness behind which is the reasoning God blessed you with, but because you refuse to comply with God’s will you’re simply unable to utilize it.

Rights founded in Secular Humanism will and MUST change as the popular whimsy of humanity changes; thus what was your 'right' yesterday is no longer a 'right' today... and Peter, that means that what you THOUGHT was a 'right' yesterday was NEVER A RIGHT... it was at BEST a privilege which 'the people' allowed due to whatever rationalization is rattling around at any given time.

I take it you have never read Leviticus. Is your position that gods law remains unchanged?

Nope... My position is that God is the ultimate authority and humanity is not in a position to set judgment of God's decisions, given that God is infinite in scope and human perspective is insufficient... Again, that you have an inkling that your human perspective is sufficient to judge God is an illusion of the dark variety; it's a lie that you need to learn to recognize and reject, as it's highly destructive.

Ya know Peter, all you have to do is ask for his help and you'll get it. It's right there for the taking... it's prepaid with no down side and a better deal the world will never see.

There are those who would like to make it so. I believe we call them terrorists. Are we wrong?

Yet another display of a total absence of reasoning...

The Opening Scenario is illustrative of the folly of such 'feelings' and proves that 'human rights' are not a viable concept within the scope of secular humanism.

Again, since you paint Christ as a tyrant out to kill based based on how individuals believe it would seem the only way for human rights to exist is by Man and not god.

Again you illustrate the absolute absence of reason. I've not painted Christ as anything except that which he himself has represented. That you believe I have is your own dark illusion... Christ is by no means a tyrant... The Father has provided each human being with the freedom to make their own choices and he has established very simple guidelines, which despite their simplicity are beyond the means of humanity to follow and as a result he has provided the gift of grace through which any human being can escape the certain damnation of final judgment and even STILL... darkness projects that God is a tyrant because there remains those who refuse to comply with the natural order of his will.

This is God's universe Peter and your presence here is a gift... you've no means or reason to reject his love and as a result contest his authority... yet you do and what's more you lack the cognition to recognize the folly of blaming God for your own shortcomings.

Would you care to go on???

LOL… Those are six words you should NEVER present to those of Irish extraction, sir... particularly when you’re unable to go with them...

 

[MichaelCollins]

When are jesus freak americans going to start thinking for themselves?

FACT... 100% of american jesus freaks supported the unprovoked US terrorism in Iraq.... Coincidence? I think not.

US Jesus freakism is entirely based upon fear and hatred of others.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Just a couple of points. Firstly, the statistics. A very good independent source for statistics is the Australian Institute of Criminology – Australian Institute of Criminology

This is how things were and are here. Each state and territory has its own firearms laws. Prior to 1996 they were all pretty much different but the easiest state in which to legally acquire a firearm was Tasmania. After the Port Arthur incident the commonwealth governent forced the states to tighten their firearms laws. That was the Howard government at its populist worse.

In self defence anyone here is permitted to use reasonable force to the point of lethal force if needed. The self defence laws of each state differ slightly but that's the guts of it. I can use a firearm, a vehicle, a knife, a bludgeon or whatever to protect me or anyone else from attack and if I kill the attacker then as long as lethal force was necessary I will not be convicted of murder or manslaughter.

You can own a sword here, you just better have a very good reason for carrying it in the street. You can own a laser pointer - I own one, I use it for instructional purposes. There is consideration being given to banning large laser pointers because brain-dead idiots think it's funny to point them at the flight deck of aircraft landing at airports here. The toy gun isn't banned.

Any adult who meets the requirements can own/possess/use a firearm. I used to own a Colt Diamondback. I used to own a Remington shotgun. I have used a number of firearms. Howard's populism removed some firearms such as gas-operated shotguns and semi-auto rifles. Howard pulled a stupid move but he was trading on the public disquiet after Port Arthur. Howard never let a chance go by if it meant he could pull a stunt that would give him kudos.

I think we're lucky in this country because the average person doesn't feel as if they need a firearm in the house to defend themselves from attack.

LOL... sure and any adult that can meet the requirements can suit up with the Patriots, Fly state of the art combat aircraft and solo in a grand tenor voice on the world's great stages...

Well I've visited your source many times over the last few years and I've seen it sourced by others... The last time I checked it was not in contest of anything I've reported... Violent crime in up exponentially in Australia and its up because it's easy to be a violent criminal in Australia... all you need to be a successful at violent crime is the means to be more violent than those your targeting. And an unarmed population makes for a target rich environment.

Of course, here in the US, we have a ton of violent crime... just not so much where the citizens are prepared to be the most violent in circumstances where they're given few alternatives. Break into my house while I'm gone and the cops will find you from the video you leave on the IP server... you'll have about 2 minutes to get what you came for before the cops get here.

If you break in while any of us are home, the good news is your finally finished making bad decisions; as the odds of you getting out alive are virtually non-existant and if you do, you won't get far unless you're mortally wounded forty is faster than the dogs and that's fairly unlikely. The point is, you may break in once... but you won't do it twice and most likely neither will anyone that knows you, of you or those who knew someone that knew you and if they do... no problem. But I digress...

I have spoken at length to dozens of Australian Ex-patriots, mostly shooters who left Australia entirely or who enjoy second homes here in Naples and most shoot competively in our local group; in and around the US.

I will say that they have entirely distinct and most decidely oppossing perspectives than yours.

As to your feelings regarding how Australians do not feel the need to own a gun for personal protection... this is the feeling commonly held by FOOD. Although I expect that they're opinion spikes towards change when they're looking at a gun or knife wielding moron(s) threatening the life of their family and friends and toward mind bending REGRET where that or those morons are given the means to strip a life of it's rights because they were insufficient to maintain their responsibility to defend that life by not possessing an effective means to do so.

Make note of this... in one generation (inside 20 years) gun ownership will be outlawed in Australia; and it is an absolute certainty that those who don't give a damn about the law... will be armed to the teeth and doing a bang up job violating the rights of the FOOD in Australia.

With any regard I appreciate your contribution; it's always respectful and that's always appreciated.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

When are jesus freak americans going to start thinking for themselves?

FACT... 100% of american jesus freaks supported the unprovoked US terrorism in Iraq.... Coincidence? I think not.

US Jesus freakism is entirely based upon fear and hatred of others.

Now that is a fine baseless assertion... Some would call it nonsense; but I prefer to call it 'pretty high thinking for an imbecile.'

And for fun... I enjoy doing this: Hey Mikey... any chance that you can post a supporting basis through fact and reason for any of that idiocy?

(Now this is where the fun begins... and there are only two possibilities:

First she tries to respond and just digs herself into an even greater expose of her intellectual depravity or...
Second, she runs like a Michael Collins from a dick measuring contest... and pretends at some point that she measured up and held her own despite her own internal certainty that such is simply not possible.)

 

[Diuretic]

I'll take on anyone on this forum to prove that GOD exist??? open a debate and ill burn you a new back door.... Nothing exist without purpose and nothing exist by accident...Burn baby burn

Okay, I'm ready - here or in another thread?

 

[Diuretic]

LOL... sure and any adult that can meet the requirements can suit up with the Patriots, Fly state of the art combat aircraft and solo in a grand tenor voice on the world's great stages...

Well I've visited your source many times over the last few years and I've seen it sourced by others... The last time I checked it was not in contest of anything I've reported... Violent crime in up exponentially in Australia and its up because it's easy to be a violent criminal in Australia... all you need to be a successful at violent crime is the means to be more violent than those your targeting. And an unarmed population makes for a target rich environment.

Of course, here in the US, we have a ton of violent crime... just not so much where the citizens are prepared to be the most violent in circumstances where they're given few alternatives. Break into my house while I'm gone and the cops will find you from the video you leave on the IP server... you'll have about 2 minutes to get what you came for before the cops get here.

If you break in while any of us are home, the good news is your finally finished making bad decisions; as the odds of you getting out alive are virtually non-existant and if you do, you won't get far unless you're mortally wounded forty is faster than the dogs and that's fairly unlikely. The point is, you may break in once... but you won't do it twice and most likely neither will anyone that knows you, of you or those who knew someone that knew you and if they do... no problem. But I digress...

I have spoken at length to dozens of Australian Ex-patriots, mostly shooters who left Australia entirely or who enjoy second homes here in Naples and most shoot competively in our local group; in and around the US.

I will say that they have entirely distinct and most decidely oppossing perspectives than yours.

As to your feelings regarding how Australians do not feel the need to own a gun for personal protection... this is the feeling commonly held by FOOD. Although I expect that they're opinion spikes towards change when they're looking at a gun or knife wielding moron(s) threatening the life of their family and friends and toward mind bending REGRET where that or those morons are given the means to strip a life of it's rights because they were insufficient to maintain their responsibility to defend that life by not possessing an effective means to do so.

Make note of this... in one generation (inside 20 years) gun ownership will be outlawed in Australia; and it is an absolute certainty that those who don't give a damn about the law... will be armed to the teeth and doing a bang up job violating the rights of the FOOD in Australia.

With any regard I appreciate your contribution; it's always respectful and that's always appreciated.

No worries, it's good to keep things civil for sure.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Now that is a fine baseless assertion... Some would call it nonsense; but I prefer to call it 'pretty high thinking for an imbecile.'

And for fun... I enjoy doing this: Hey Mikey... any chance that you can post a supporting basis through fact and reason for any of that idiocy?

(Now this is where the fun begins... and there are only two possibilities:

First she tries to respond and just digs herself into an even greater expose of her intellectual depravity or...
Second, she runs like a Michael Collins from a dick measuring contest... and pretends at some point that she measured up and held her own despite her own internal certainty that such is simply not possible.)

You are very lucky that you live in a third world country and that you are too poor to travel to a first world one.

You would be laughed out of town if you revealed your faith in fairytales and your fear and hatred of foreigners.

Regards,

MC