In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[editec]

Seems to this believer that the introduction of such a lofty and noble concept as human rights into the human gestalt -- despite the inhuman depotism that was passed off as God behaving badly Old Testament -- is proof positive that there must be a GOD who decided to correct the record about who or what it is, and what GOD considered reasonable behavior for mankind to visit upon his fellow men.

During that time when Christendom totally dominated Western Civilization, man's inhumanity to man, including slavery and torture was standard operating procedure.

I believe that GOD was so insensed that such inhuman treatment was done in his name that he broke the power of the CHURCH over our Western culture.

Yeah, that's right, fellow believers. GOD detroyed the franchise of the Holy Church.

I'll say that again for those of you who don't quite get the responsibility that GOD put on YOU to get it right.

GOD broke down the power that he'd granted to the Church because the CHURCH ITSELF didn't believe in the dignity of man (AKA human rights) as taught by Jesus Christ.

GOD broke down the power that he'd granted to the Church because the Holy Church itself had become an unholy den of iniquity.

ONLY HUMAN BEINGS can make human rights a reality on this earth.

God grants us all FREE WILL, remember?

Hence, no matter what you or do NOT believe about GOD, the establishment and practice of human rights are the responsiblity of MAN, not GOD.

 

[newpolitics]

Pubis, are you basically trying to get at the basis of morality? If so, why not just ask it straight out? Also, this is a very fundamental philosophical arguement. Why are you bringing it up? No doubt it's fun to debate, but you won't listen to what anyone else has to say. You only put everyone down, for putting forth their opinion, because it doesn't agree with yours. Isn't the point of debate to share eachother's opinion? I find this to be the ultimate paradox in fundamentalist thought: those who claim supreme righteousness exhibit behavior that is anything but...

I already know your response will include some philosophical jargon to break-down everything I just said, but I could sum you up in one word: ego

 

[WhiteLion]

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.

Your disturbed badly and in need of special medication bro...

 

[WhiteLion]

Pubis, are you basically trying to get at the basis of morality? If so, why not just ask it straight out? Also, this is a very fundamental philosophical arguement. Why are you bringing it up? No doubt it's fun to debate, but you won't listen to what anyone else has to say. You only put everyone down, for putting forth their opinion, because it doesn't agree with yours. Isn't the point of debate to share eachother's opinion? I find this to be the ultimate paradox in fundamentalist thought: those who claim supreme righteousness exhibit behavior that is anything but...

I already know your response will include some philosophical jargon to break-down everything I just said, but I could sum you up in one word: ego

Pubis has been trying to explain i believe in the simplist of terms, but you people are not obsorbing it???

 

[editec]

Pubis has been trying to explain i believe in the simplist of terms, but you people are not obsorbing it???

Publis's arguments are entirely faith based blather.

Announcing that he'd won the debate is childish nonsense.

Another believer who makes me cringe in embarrassment for all believers.

 

[WhiteLion]

Seems to this believer that the introduction of such a lofty and noble concept as human rights into the human gestalt -- despite the inhuman depotism that was passed off as God behaving badly Old Testament -- is proof positive that there must be a GOD who decided to correct the record about who or what it is, and what GOD considered reasonable behavior for mankind to visit upon his fellow men.

During that time when Christendom totally dominated Western Civilization, man's inhumanity to man, including slavery and torture was standard operating procedure.

I believe that GOD was so insensed that such inhuman treatment was done in his name that he broke the power of the CHURCH over our Western culture.

Yeah, that's right, fellow believers. GOD detroyed the franchise of the Holy Church.

I'll say that again for those of you who don't quite get the responsibility that GOD put on YOU to get it right.

GOD broke down the power that he'd granted to the Church because the CHURCH ITSELF didn't believe in the dignity of man (AKA human rights) as taught by Jesus Christ.

GOD broke down the power that he'd granted to the Church because the Holy Church itself had become an unholy den of iniquity.

ONLY HUMAN BEINGS can make human rights a reality on this earth.

God grants us all FREE WILL, remember?

Hence, no matter what you or do NOT believe about GOD, the establishment and practice of human rights are the responsiblity of MAN, not GOD.

I dont know about that other stuff, but i do know that GOD had nothing to do with human rights, thats a debacle of our own making........

 

[AVG-JOE]

I dont know about that other stuff, but i do know that GOD had nothing to do with human rights, thats a debacle of our own making........

Exactly. American rights are described and guaranteed by America, Chinese rights are described and guaranteed by China and Human rights are described and guaranteed by Humanity.

Sucks to be historically party to so many broken promises, eh?

Let me ask, are there any rights described and guaranteed by God?

-Joe

 

[PeterS]

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.

Look, I am sure somewhere in the 15,000 word essay you just wrote you may have vaguely touched on my central question but since you start off contradicting yourself I doubt it so lets get straight to the point. You stated very clearly that Christ can and will kill me if I exercise my right to be my own sovereign in any manor other that how he dictates. And I preface my question this way because if I cannot be my own sovereign then no other rights exist. None. I have no right to life; Christ takes that away from me. I have no right worship as I choose; Christ takes that away from me. There exists not a single right outside the very narrow parameter that I accept him as my savior. And please note: Christ will kill me not because I killed someone; not because I threatened someone; not because I lived my life in an immoral manor. He will kill me, then burn me for eternity in hell, for the egregious sin of not needing nor wanting his salvation. That’s it. That’s all the reason needed.

Do not stand there and state that rights come from god when clearly it is god that is taking them away…

 

[PeterS]

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...

True, but you are the one taking the position of certainty. This is why proof lies on your side. What is your proof? Do you have any?

 

[PeterS]

. 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.

What failures? I was taught that all that was needed to enter heaven was the acceptance of christ as my savior regardless of my failures. That being the case there is only one failure that can send me to hell--the failure to acquiesce the freedom granted by the constitution.

Again, you are demonstrating quite well how rights do not extend from god.

 

[editec]

True, but you are the one taking the position of certainty. This is why proof lies on your side. What is your proof? Do you have any?

Debating such issue with people who are psychotic for GOD is largely an exercise in futility.

They have an escape clause from dialogue logic called BLIND FAITH.

 

[PeterS]

Debating such issue with people who are psychotic for GOD is largely an exercise in futility.

They have an escape clause from dialogue logic called BLIND FAITH.

But these are the ones seeking to destroy our free society and freedom is not futile. I will not acquiesce to tyranny.

 

[PeterS]

You've no reason or means to fight Christ sport...

Reason? So I don’t have a right to life or defend my life? Isn’t that reason enough?

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.'

But the constitution says I have many choices with the only restriction that I not extent my choice over yours. Based on our constitution what is god punishing me for? Shouldn’t it be the other way around. Isn’t it god who is in violation of my rights and therefore the one who should be punished?

 

[Diuretic]

I disagree. It's good for people with polarised views to discuss those views. It might seem pointless but if all of us can just keep a little bit of an open mind it's amazing what insights can be achieved.

If I may quote Francis Bacon (sod it, now I seem like a wanker, oh well, so be it)

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.

None of us have the answers, but we might have good questions and by questioning one another we may get some answers.

 

[PeterS]

Let's go to the rhetorical video tape:

Lets go to human logic. If I am a priest and I minister to all denominations I am what, secular or sectarian. If I am the same priest and I extent by religious belief to my legislation and thereby extend it over you I am what, secular or sectarian?

You cannot have a secular government when the religious will of one, through legislation, is extended over everyone. You are the one who clearly does not understand the meaning of secular. We can be a secular government only when the will of our various gods are left outside.

 

[Diuretic]

I need to duck.

Crossfire

 

[PeterS]

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...

So explain how it is one can be free if sovereignty lies outside ones own domain? By what right did we have to rebel to begin with?

 

[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.)

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

And we find our flaccid little flower opts for the always popular COMBO! She realized she had no means to support her now indisputably discredited 'point of view' and returned to poor yet another impotent screed on the discussion...

Notice that in the italicized first paragraph that she feigns an impotent attempt at superiority via empty projections, but moves directly to establish as her main point that she feels VERY STRONGLY that truth is rooted in the popularity of a given position... where we can rest assured that on any given day, on any given issue, that Mike Collins will follow the crowd like a fart in the breeze...

Now friends... Mike Collins here is typical of the Euro-Idiocracy. Her personality; hier species of intellect (for what it is...) would be precisely that type which was illustrated in the Opening Scenario... knocking down the door, with the bag of dismembered heads, reacting to the popularly held public whim of the day... certain that 'its Right' because 'everyone is doing it!'

She's the "Party Member" that tows conventional wisdom, never questioning the reasoning, simply because she lacks the means to do so... the very BEST we will EVER see out of Michael Collins is a trail of clumsily advanced clichés which are designed to evoke the empty platitudes of ‘populism’...

Mikey... you pathetic heap of idiocy... I am going to tell you something that IF, as unlikely as it is, YOU CAN FIND THE INTELLECTUAL STRENGTH TO CONSIDER IT and actually COMPREHEND IT... it could change your entire life. I want you to finish reading this post, print it if you need to... then turn off your computer and THINK... Do NOT spend a SECOND trying to determine how you "FEEL ABOUT IT," THINK ABOUT THIS PRINCIPLE AND REALIZE THE TRUTHS WHICH REST DIRECTLY UPON IT: (Now get ready cause here it comes)

"THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE VALIDITY AND TRUTH INHERENT IN A GIVEN POSITION AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ADHERE TO IT. " Publius Infinitum. circa 1996...

(Just to give you a fighting chance here... that means that God's existence doesn't hinge on how many people believe in him; it means that the number of people that would laugh at a given position has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that position is founded in truth and whether or not its conclusion rests upon a valid logic construct...)

Now turn off that computer sis and try, to the degree that you're able, to focus on the incontrovertible truth in this bedrock principle of human interaction...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Look, I am sure somewhere in the 15,000 word essay you just wrote you may have vaguely touched on my central question but since you start off contradicting yourself I doubt it so lets get straight to the point.

So... in essence, you realize your position is lost, but you can't muster the intellectual veracity to admit it. Fair enough... that is the basis from which any discussion with darkness must begin.

You stated very clearly that Christ can and will kill me if I exercise my right to be my own sovereign in any manor other that how he dictates.

There is absolutely NOTHING in my thesis which could lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion.

What I've said is that God came to earth incarnate, lived his life as an innocent man; subjected himself to the unspeakable torment of the crucifixion to pay for your sins, so that you can live in heaven, washed in the light of fellowship with the Father... a gift he willingly gave to you, so that you may live, despite your own inherent short comings and that all you need to do to is to accept his gift of grace to avoid the absolute certainty of eternal damnation.

The CHOICE IS YOURS... Christ has made absolutely NO attempt to rob you of your human sovereignty; he provides you with the opportunity to live your life as you would do so; to pursue the fulfillment of your life as you CHOOSE to do so; BUT where you would choose to exercise your rights to the detriment of the rights of others, YOU CHOOSE to fail to maintain the responsibility on which your OWN RIGHTS rest and thus CHOOSE to forfeit your human rights in the process of and as a direct result of your OWN CHOICE. That Christ has given you the means make your own choices, he has promised to hold you accountable for those choices...

What you are arguing from the darkness, is that you demand that you be allowed to make your choices absent any accountability... that you should not be held accountable for your choices.

You desperately want to believe that there can be no freedom unless and until you are, or until you BECOME: God. You have to have it all... or you're not playing.

And it's right there sir, where you should be able to see that your entire argument rests on a bed of lies.

You're free to be whatever you want... all you have to do is to pursue your life without infringing on someone else's means to pursue their own and to do so knowing that when it's all said and done that you will be held accountable for the choices you've made and that the judgment will be made without consideration for the specious rationalizations you created to justify your choices where you've infringed on the rights of others... where you've violated God's universal rules.

The simple fact is that you're working from the other side of an illusion; a lie that presents to you the false notion that you have a choice to play or not to play; that you have the choice to 'give God the authority to judge you;' that you should be God; because you're in possession of the knowledge, to simply do a better job.

It's the same old story of the child that wants to be the parent... the wonderful news here is that in most scenarios the child does become the parent and inevitably does so only to find that their own Parent was right all along; that the angst that they were feeling as a child was born from the limited perspective of the child.

And I preface my question this way because if I cannot be my own sovereign then no other rights exist. None. I have no right to life; Christ takes that away from me. I have no right worship as I choose; Christ takes that away from me. There exists not a single right outside the very narrow parameter that I accept him as my savior. And please note: Christ will kill me not because I killed someone; not because I threatened someone; not because I lived my life in an immoral manor. He will kill me, then burn me for eternity in hell, for the egregious sin of not needing nor wanting his salvation. That’s it. That’s all the reason needed.

False... You HAD A CHOICE TO LIVE YOUR HUMAN LIFE AS YOU WOULD... Christ didn't force you to love him... he didn't force you to accept his gift. Christ simply understood the reality that as a human being you could never live a life sufficiently pure that you would be able to experience the fellowship of the light of the Father... and as a result of THAT, your soul will be unable to exist within the light and fellowship of the Father... Christ realized that where the Father is, there is light, love and infinite peace... where the Father is not, is darkness torment and agony... Christ merely sought to save you from your on inability to save yourself; he willingly came to earth, lived incarnate, as a human being; flesh and blood, but lived a pure life and despite that, he knowingly sacrificed that life, which he cherished just as any other human would, to pay the price for the sins of humanity... a price which is inescapable... a price required by the rules of nature, which you may or may not be capable of understanding, but which exist in the absence of your consent; despite and without regard of your approval... Christ understood that you would not understand and he provided you with the gift of grace, so that despite your limitations, you'd have a chance; one based upon the same thing that assures your damnation... one simple choice. Thus, Christ has already saved you from damnation; he's already paid the debt you incurred for your poor choices; he's done is part and given you a gift which you can never hope to deserve... and despite that, your fate remains in your hands; it remains a function of your choices, as a free sovereign. He will not force you to accept his gift, he will not step in and make you make good choices... all he is doing is holding you accountable for the choice that you make.

A choice which to this point you seem to be determined to reject; and this on the basis that you feel that if you are NOT GOD; if you don't set the rules as YOU SEE FIT... well then you're not really free so screw the Universe and everyone in it, INCLUDING THE BEING THAT CREATED YOU, GAVE YOU THE VERY LIFE IN WHICH YOU'RE PRESENTLY FREE TO CHOOSE TO REJECT HIM...

Do not stand there and state that rights come from god when clearly it is god that is taking them away…

Your rights came from God... inherent in the life God gave you and despite that gift of life and the right to your sovereign independence, the choice you're presently making is to reject him; this on the basis of a delusion of your own making, wherein you demand MORE... You demand from your Creator that for you to be TRULY FREE and for the GIFT OF YOUR LIFE AND THE RIGHTS INHERENT IN IT TO MEAN SOMETHING TO YOU... that God must MAKE YOU GOD! Or his gifts will be rejected as NO KIND OF GIFT AT ALL ...

Imagine a parent of child such as yourself, Peter; despite ALL the Parent has done for them, they demand more, until eventually it becomes clear that they want it all... that nothing they do will ever be enough; they just complaim and require more and more until at some point, they must be held accountable... imagine the heartbreak of that accounting and perhaps you'll get something which can't be adequately described as a glimmer of understanding of what the Father must feel when his children fail to come home; but its as close as our language will get.

Secular Humanism is a lie Peter... your position rests on little more than what can only be described as the illusion of light... you are living in the absence of reason, destined to remain in want, because you can't be satisfied with anything that is short of everything.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pubis, are you basically trying to get at the basis of morality? If so, why not just ask it straight out? Also, this is a very fundamental philosophical arguement. Why are you bringing it up? No doubt it's fun to debate, but you won't listen to what anyone else has to say. You only put everyone down, for putting forth their opinion, because it doesn't agree with yours. Isn't the point of debate to share eachother's opinion? I find this to be the ultimate paradox in fundamentalist thought: those who claim supreme righteousness exhibit behavior that is anything but...

I already know your response will include some philosophical jargon to break-down everything I just said, but I could sum you up in one word: ego

First... I haven't put anyone down because they disagree with me... ever... not on this site, nor any other. So that position is nothing if it is not a lie of the damned variety... Of course, as always I invite you, towards encouraging you to the degree that I am able, to support your assertion, providing it a heretofore decidedly absent, factual and reasoned basis.

Debate is the search for truth... the function of rhetorical persuasion... a dialogue wherein oppossing points of view advance their respective perspectives... What most people find unsettling about debate is that they're forced, through the process TO THINK! A function which is, as incredible as it may seem, wholly unfamiliar to many, if not MOST people.

Now the point of the discussion, from my point of view, is to add to the litany of evidence that the ideological left; the Advocates of Social Science; the purveyors of compassion and tolerance for those bearing different ideas from their own... are advancing concepts which are something well short of viable; to prove that the 'Progressive species of reasoning' is not founded in reasoning at all; but instead rests on little more than spurious rationalizations which have failed every test, in every social experiment wherein the most closely held feelings of 'liberalism' have found themselves exposed, applied or otherwise subjected to practical application; the result of which has been one form of calamity, catastrophe and chaos or another.

But friends... how sad is it that this member reports: "I already know your response will include some philosophical jargon to break-down everything I just said" and despite her own implied certainty that her position is thoroughly refutable, she simply refuses to reconsider that position and reestablish her thinking on the impenetrable bedrock of sound reasoning?