WhiteLion
WMS.
King James Bible Matthew 24:5
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
(In the face of G-d, some of the most egregrious wrongs have been perpetrated against humans.)
In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.
- Thread starter PubliusInfinitum
- Start date
King James Bible Matthew 24:5
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
(In the face of G-d, some of the most egregrious wrongs have been perpetrated against humans.)
WhiteLion
WMS.
<< 2 Thessalonians 2:9 >>
King James Bible: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Secular Humanism is a lie...
Last edited:
WhiteLion
WMS.
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
No you cant shoot'em, Gun Laws are revoked??? if the senario is played out right, by the time they come headhunting the Guns are outlawed for civilian use....Bad Boys, Bad Boys, watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do when they come for you Bad Boys....... lol like dog chasing his tail ,oh shit we abolished the second amendment lol
Last edited:
jillian
Princess
No. you wouldn't... because by the time you actually forced yourself to believe that your country wanted you dead, it would be too late.
And THAT is the cold hard fact... cause the second you pulled your glock in the face of the military, you'd be a chalk outline.
And G-d did not such thing... you confuse reality with philosophical discussion.
PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #26
Fascinating...
First, let me thank everyone for their comments. I will focus on those advanced by our secular humanist members and for the sake of brevity, I'll respond in general and for the moment omit any specific quotes...
There seems to be a consensus that (with regard to the scenario) the lowly atheist is in full possession of their human rights... despite the lawful world government which has determined otherwise; you seem to be arguing that that these human rights of yours are just a fabrication of the species... prone to the whimsy of the individual. Does it occur to you that such a notion MUST be at the foundation of a scenario wherein a given segment of the population has been stripped of any sense of their humanity, determined to be so inconvenient that they are set for destruction?
I mean, how else would a government EVER be able to legislate and finally determine that such legislation is lawful, IF the notion of human rights was something other than a relative inference of the individual?
I'd ask again from what source do our secular humanists draw these rights? If these 'human rights' are in fact merely a contrivance, then I'd say that within the scope of the scenario that Atheism is pretty well screwed... much as the Jewish citizens of Europe in the early 20th century were screwed. They also believed, in many cases, that 'calmer heads would prevail and ‘reason’ would inevitably prove that they were entitled to their humanity… Sadly, such was not to be and millions perished from unspeakable torment and deprivation.
Those of you that have stated that you would murder law abiding citizens; specifically, those who within the scenario were busting down your door; those who are doing their duty to rid the planet of that which the lawful, duly appointed, secular high court had deemed unfit for life (YOU); you seem pretty eager to destroy innocent, law abiding life... How does that square with your premise that you can be a moral, law abiding citizen and not be religious? Did you not just determine that you would take the life of a fellow human being in the absence of a valid legal justification? Your last act on this earth will be to murder or at least TRY to murder innocent people, who are only doing what the duly elected and lawfully appointed Government had INSTRUCTED THEM TO DO...
On what authority do YOU determine that YOUR life is superior to those who are doing what "THE PEOPLE" had legally determined, through their Democratic process, was the right thing to do?
Please, fight the urge to dismiss this scenario and react as is so typical of the knee-jerk fascist through vulgar clichés and empty headed sloganeering…
I want to know where you draw the strength and the moral authority to take the life of people that are doing their duty as good, law abiding citizens… Citizens who believe, as you do, that the final arbiter of right is that which is legal; that which has been considered and decided by the high court to be right and just… that some members of human species are not entitled to pursue the fulfillment of their life; to be without human rights, on the basis of nothing more than a spurious rationalization, but that rationalization stands on the full scope of power of the government and the support of a fair percentage of the population.
Of course, if in fact you are correct and that human rights are nothing beyond a contrivance of the human mind; then human rights can be whatever the species, government, a popular majority determine them to be; and those found as the subject of the above scenario will be subject to the whim of their fellow man… of course at such a point, their only hope; the only hope of the species will be that they’ll be within the sphere of influence of those who believe as I; that human rights are inherent in human life and rest on the authority of God himself; an authority which stands above that of any human element and recognize that their own rights rest on their own responsibility to defend innocent human life from the threat of death and serious bodily injury; to defend innocent human life from those who are acting in the absence of a valid moral justification and who understand that if they do not take action to defend that innocent life, that they will by default forfeit their own their own human rights…; that their rights rest solely on the inherent responsibility to defend those rights; for themselves as for their neighbors... as those rights are given by God and that no man can take or give what was not his to give and not within his means to take.
First, let me thank everyone for their comments. I will focus on those advanced by our secular humanist members and for the sake of brevity, I'll respond in general and for the moment omit any specific quotes...
There seems to be a consensus that (with regard to the scenario) the lowly atheist is in full possession of their human rights... despite the lawful world government which has determined otherwise; you seem to be arguing that that these human rights of yours are just a fabrication of the species... prone to the whimsy of the individual. Does it occur to you that such a notion MUST be at the foundation of a scenario wherein a given segment of the population has been stripped of any sense of their humanity, determined to be so inconvenient that they are set for destruction?
I mean, how else would a government EVER be able to legislate and finally determine that such legislation is lawful, IF the notion of human rights was something other than a relative inference of the individual?
I'd ask again from what source do our secular humanists draw these rights? If these 'human rights' are in fact merely a contrivance, then I'd say that within the scope of the scenario that Atheism is pretty well screwed... much as the Jewish citizens of Europe in the early 20th century were screwed. They also believed, in many cases, that 'calmer heads would prevail and ‘reason’ would inevitably prove that they were entitled to their humanity… Sadly, such was not to be and millions perished from unspeakable torment and deprivation.
Those of you that have stated that you would murder law abiding citizens; specifically, those who within the scenario were busting down your door; those who are doing their duty to rid the planet of that which the lawful, duly appointed, secular high court had deemed unfit for life (YOU); you seem pretty eager to destroy innocent, law abiding life... How does that square with your premise that you can be a moral, law abiding citizen and not be religious? Did you not just determine that you would take the life of a fellow human being in the absence of a valid legal justification? Your last act on this earth will be to murder or at least TRY to murder innocent people, who are only doing what the duly elected and lawfully appointed Government had INSTRUCTED THEM TO DO...
On what authority do YOU determine that YOUR life is superior to those who are doing what "THE PEOPLE" had legally determined, through their Democratic process, was the right thing to do?
Please, fight the urge to dismiss this scenario and react as is so typical of the knee-jerk fascist through vulgar clichés and empty headed sloganeering…
I want to know where you draw the strength and the moral authority to take the life of people that are doing their duty as good, law abiding citizens… Citizens who believe, as you do, that the final arbiter of right is that which is legal; that which has been considered and decided by the high court to be right and just… that some members of human species are not entitled to pursue the fulfillment of their life; to be without human rights, on the basis of nothing more than a spurious rationalization, but that rationalization stands on the full scope of power of the government and the support of a fair percentage of the population.
Of course, if in fact you are correct and that human rights are nothing beyond a contrivance of the human mind; then human rights can be whatever the species, government, a popular majority determine them to be; and those found as the subject of the above scenario will be subject to the whim of their fellow man… of course at such a point, their only hope; the only hope of the species will be that they’ll be within the sphere of influence of those who believe as I; that human rights are inherent in human life and rest on the authority of God himself; an authority which stands above that of any human element and recognize that their own rights rest on their own responsibility to defend innocent human life from the threat of death and serious bodily injury; to defend innocent human life from those who are acting in the absence of a valid moral justification and who understand that if they do not take action to defend that innocent life, that they will by default forfeit their own their own human rights…; that their rights rest solely on the inherent responsibility to defend those rights; for themselves as for their neighbors... as those rights are given by God and that no man can take or give what was not his to give and not within his means to take.
Last edited:
jillian
Princess
Fair... (though the NT doesn't do much for me). But you do realize morality and religion are not necessarily intertwined. As Dee said, having a moral compass has nothing to do with religious belif.
Diuretic
Permanently confused
This is a game, it's a hypothetical. I will get out my hypothetical BFG (the very same one I used to use in "Doom") and take those suckers out!
PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #29
Come now kids... Don't be shy...
Let's here the basis in reasoning for these Rights you Godless Secular-Humanist lay claim to...
Your silence is fairly illustrative of what happens when you rest your most closely held feelings on the shifting sands of left-think...
We're constantly being told of how 'the law is the law!' and that because it's legal; that it's 'the will of the people' of which 'justice' is comprised...
Our scenario has advanced the 'will of the people' and the atheists are out of the will... You claim you have a right to your life kids... absent the authority of God's endowment, how do you square taking the lives of the law abiding, who are stalking you so as to carry out 'the will of the people' with your long standing position that what's legal is right and just?
(You see friends, this is what happens when principle is rinsed from justice. The basis of secular-human rights rests upon specious reasoning; taken from the context where the death of another is being rationalized, the same reasoning which justified that killing doesn't justify the rationalization that THEY are not entitled to their life... 'they just are...')
Now please, don't be shy... let us all experience the enlightenment of secular-humanists feelings.
Let's here the basis in reasoning for these Rights you Godless Secular-Humanist lay claim to...
Your silence is fairly illustrative of what happens when you rest your most closely held feelings on the shifting sands of left-think...
We're constantly being told of how 'the law is the law!' and that because it's legal; that it's 'the will of the people' of which 'justice' is comprised...
Our scenario has advanced the 'will of the people' and the atheists are out of the will... You claim you have a right to your life kids... absent the authority of God's endowment, how do you square taking the lives of the law abiding, who are stalking you so as to carry out 'the will of the people' with your long standing position that what's legal is right and just?
(You see friends, this is what happens when principle is rinsed from justice. The basis of secular-human rights rests upon specious reasoning; taken from the context where the death of another is being rationalized, the same reasoning which justified that killing doesn't justify the rationalization that THEY are not entitled to their life... 'they just are...')
Now please, don't be shy... let us all experience the enlightenment of secular-humanists feelings.
if it did we wouldn't see so many priests and pastors molesting children would we!
where is their God when they have their hand down a child's pants?
WhiteLion
WMS.
(SO MANY???)Ive never heard of a Protestant Pastor doing anything of this nature, however being that they are human, and had they gotten off into some weird secular humanistic practices anything's possible... Now i've seen articles of catholic clergy involved in child molestation..Because a dog chases rats does that make him a cat?? or just because a man says im a pastor does it make him or her a Christian??? how do you really distinguish??? Out of the millions that preach the Gospels some will fall away, but you cant judge the whole,, for the wrong of the few...the band of true Christians is much like the road to heaven its very thin....
22 For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. Mt. 10.26 · Lk. 12.2
King James Bible Matthew 24:5
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,928
- 0
- Banned
- #32
Teachers are the worst culprits. I guess that means we should stop teaching.
25 percent of all students claim to have been molested by a school employee at some point. 1-5 percent of all teachers are molesters.
I'm not posting a link because we exhausted this in another thread.
25 percent of all students claim to have been molested by a school employee at some point. 1-5 percent of all teachers are molesters.
I'm not posting a link because we exhausted this in another thread.
Diuretic
Permanently confused
I can prove human rights are a human invention. Can you prove human rights are endowed by a creator?
Diuretic
Permanently confused
Humans invented human rights. That's my position. I know humans exist, I can prove it. I know human rights exist, I can prove it. I know humans invented human rights, I can prove it.
Those who believe that a creator endowed humans with human rights are assuming -
a. the existence of a creator (as yet unprovable
b. that the creator gave humans human rights (not provable because of a.)
So those who argue that human rights are endowed by a creator are simply making assumptions and expecting me and others to accept those assumptions.
They're just assumptions.
If a creator gave humans human rights then under what conditions were they given?
WhiteLion
WMS.
GOD created us, we created the worship of ourselves, or human rights that have miseribly failed through out the ages...I assure you GOD had nothing to do with Human Rights that was a debacle of our own doing...Human Rights say we are all little GODs deciding who lives and who dies.. Last i heard, at the end of your life its not a Secular Humanist thats going to judge you, no its the sin of rejecting GODs only begotten SON, JESUS THE CHRIST.........We have nothing to prove...
Framers of the Declaration of Independence thought enough to live and protect us by the idea of a creator...
<< John 3:16 >>For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. The awsome GOLDEN RULE.............
<< Genesis 1:27 >>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
<< Colossians 2:8 >>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Last edited:
KittenKoder
Senior Member
My question is this, could hate exist without human rights?
Diuretic
Permanently confused
Diuretic
Permanently confused
Hate is necessary for humans.
Similar threads
