Realities of Rights

I will admit that not all the sites on the internet are objective...whether they talk about the Bible, Koran, or other religious document. To an adamant believer in a religion all criticism is patently wrong - that is the nature of faith in a religion. You must have faith in what the religion teaches you, no questions allowed.

I don't know what faith means to you but the bible defines it as the belief in evidence of things unseen.

I believe based on evidence. I use reason and logic. My bible advocates asking questions and admires those who question. I have looked at a lot of criticism and like Andy I find that most of it is ridiculous. Some of it is credible until further scrutiny is applied. Some is mildly troubling but can be explained and I assume that the rare awkward explanations are due to the sometime difficulty in translations that does occur when reading material that is so old. And very rarely there is a criticism that I have not found a reasonable explanation for but since the criticism is not about anything important it can be shelved but nor forgotten. So far there has been no valid substantial criticism in the thousands of years that smart minds have been looking for it.
 
Werbung:
....Or, stewardship of the planet. That's (conveniently) fallen-by-the-wayside, as well. :rolleyes:

I don't believe stewardship generally has been forgotten by Christians. It seems the only people who do think it has been forgotten are those who have extreme views of what it means to be a steward.
 
You mean, like....allowing conservatives to pursue whatever agenda (they choose) in airport-restrooms? :rolleyes:

I'm trying to be as unbiased as you.

Hmm let's see? One conservative agenda would be that we don't steal from one another in order to support those who do not work. So yes I think we should allow the rights of conservatives in airport restrooms to keep their own money and not be forced to spend their own dimes to let others into the pay stalls.


The rights of liberals or conservatives however end where one's fist stops and another's nose begins. So those who would choose to have sex in the public restroom, a place where any unsuspecting father might bring his son in to actually use the room for it's intended purpose, do not have a right to do so.
 
I will admit that not all the sites on the internet are objective...whether they talk about the Bible, Koran, or other religious document. To an adamant believer in a religion all criticism is patently wrong - that is the nature of faith in a religion. You must have faith in what the religion teaches you, no questions allowed.

No, I always question my belief system. That's how I know it's true. I've read more anti-christian crap than most atheist have ever read the Bible with an open mind. It's the testing of the faith, such as looking through your link of supposed 'inconsistency', that prove the truth of the matter when they all fail.

The purpose of all religions should be to lay out a path to find God. The moral philosophy espoused by the belief system espoused by the religion you choose should be a way for you to discover God - kind of stepping stones along the path, if you will. Finding God means living a more contented and meaningful life.

Buddhists believe you are reincarnated. Muslims believe only if you die killing infidels can you be assured of heaven. Mormons believe in deification. And Christians believe that only through accepting Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty for sins, can one enter Heaven. All can not be a path to g-d.

Nazi were contented with how they lived. Does that mean they found a path to g-d?

I will agree that no one can simply construct a moral system or find the contentment that God brings by picking and choosing belief systems that simply happen to fit with your current life style and mode of living. That is not finding God, that is using religion to justify all of your actions.

On the other hand, when I read and study a religious book and it was compiled by very fallible humans, often with dubious motives, then I have the obligation to deny this source as reliable. And anyone who reads the Gospels of the New Testament can easily find inconsistencies among the authors who were telling the same story.

The gospels are not, nor were supposed to be, a chronological text book. Some told stories the others did not. They were not supposed to. Some told the stories in different orders. They never said they were supposed to be in order. Some told the same story from a different view point. They never claimed to have the same view point.

I have no serious doubt that a man named Jesus was inspired by God and walked to earth teaching lessons inspired by God. It is probable that a man name Mohammad walked a similar path motivated by God. But that does obligate me to accept every word written in the Bible and the Koran. Many such men probably walked the earth similarly inspired.

One of which did miracles, and fulfilled hundreds of prophesies written hundreds of years prior. The other slept with a 9 year old, slaughters thousands who refused to submit, and openly said he didn't know if he'd go to Heaven.

It is my philosophy that people of the 21st century can find patterns in religious teachings of the past which can provide collective guidance about how to find God, how God participates in our lives, and what he expects from us.

I respectfully disagree. Something is either true, and you should follow it explicitly, or it is not, and you shouldn't waste your time with half truths, which are just lies.
 
I don't know what faith means to you but the bible defines it as the belief in evidence of things unseen.

I cannot see where the Christian Bible defines faith. But even if you use the word “define” abstractly, much of the Bible is telling you to believe in things that are magical and highly improbable. One of the most fundamental Christian beliefs is that Jesus existed on earth in three forms: as God himself, as God’s son, and as the spirit of God. This is something that you cannot blow off as having some abstract meaning - as a Christian you must believe that as the literal truth.

I believe based on evidence. I use reason and logic. My bible advocates asking questions and admires those who question. I have looked at a lot of criticism and like Andy I find that most of it is ridiculous. Some of it is credible until further scrutiny is applied. Some is mildly troubling but can be explained and I assume that the rare awkward explanations are due to the sometime difficulty in translations that does occur when reading material that is so old. And very rarely there is a criticism that I have not found a reasonable explanation for but since the criticism is not about anything important it can be shelved but nor forgotten. So far there has been no valid substantial criticism in the thousands of years that smart minds have been looking for it.

If you can see reason and logic in the Bible, it certainly a evades me. However, I certainly would never try to change your views regarding religion. Finding God is a very personal experience. Trying to convince other people to change their views about spirituality is both a useless endeavor and has no purpose.

The one rule that everyone should respect is to never expect other people to hold to your religious standards. That was how this thread began.. with Chip professing that his views about life and God are universal truths. To my mind, the concept of a universal truth is similar to the concept of personal freedoms… you have every right to practice your own beliefs as long as they do not infringe on mine.
 
I cannot see where the Christian Bible defines faith. But even if you use the word “define” abstractly, much of the Bible is telling you to believe in things that are magical and highly improbable. One of the most fundamental Christian beliefs is that Jesus existed on earth in three forms: as God himself, as God’s son, and as the spirit of God. This is something that you cannot blow off as having some abstract meaning - as a Christian you must believe that as the literal truth.

Are you claiming something you can't understand, isn't possible for G-d? I mean, I personally don't understand how merely G-d's words can speak the universe into existence, but I am ok with the idea there are things about G-d that I won't understand this side of Heaven.

You can't see where the Bible defines faith? John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

Seems pretty clear.


If you can see reason and logic in the Bible, it certainly a evades me. However, I certainly would never try to change your views regarding religion. Finding God is a very personal experience. Trying to convince other people to change their views about spirituality is both a useless endeavor and has no purpose.

Antony Flew, was a prominent atheist for dozens of years. After an open debate with Gary Habermas, Flew later changed his atheist position of 40 some odd years, to deist. C.S. Lewis, also changed from being a avid atheist to being a Christian. Somehow I don't see that it serves no purpose.

The one rule that everyone should respect is to never expect other people to hold to your religious standards. That was how this thread began.. with Chip professing that his views about life and God are universal truths. To my mind, the concept of a universal truth is similar to the concept of personal freedoms… you have every right to practice your own beliefs as long as they do not infringe on mine.

Does that include the babies right to life?
 
You can't see where the Bible defines faith? John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

Seems pretty clear.
I'm curious why you would believe that scripture. Of all the scriptures written in all the holy books in human history, why would you focus on this one scripture and decide to believe it? Is there single iota of ANYTHING to make you think it's true, or is it just that you need/want to believe something and this appealed to you? This is an honest question, I don't believe in reincarnation because I don't "believe" things in that way, but I think that it makes a lot of sense. I see multiple lives as being no more miraculous than a single life and we certainly cannot learn all we can here in just one lifetime. I have no reason to think that souls (if they exist) have gender, so how will you learn what it's like to be a woman if you don't come back for a life as one? I've always thought that logically the idea of one life and then non-existence or some kind of Judgment was unbelieveable, it seems to make God too small, it makes our "immortal souls" almost like throwaway batteries which cannot be recharged but instead get sent to the garbage or the Heavenly Storage Yard.

Antony Flew, was a prominent atheist for dozens of years. After an open debate with Gary Habermas, Flew later changed his atheist position of 40 some odd years, to deist. C.S. Lewis, also changed from being a avid atheist to being a Christian. Somehow I don't see that it serves no purpose.
Many people become senile as they age.

Does that include the babies right to life?
I will assume you're referring to abortion since babies don't generally infringe upon people's rights--except by throwing up on them.

There is no better example of an action being between God and a specific person than in the case of abortion. The fetus is a parasite living off the mother's body, if she doesn't want it, who am I to tell she has to continue to keep it? I wish there would never be another abortion, but I also realize that as long as that fetus is not viable and inside the mother's body, then the mother has the final say--it's between her and God. It's difficult to give others the right to choose how they use their own bodies, but I think it's necessary. Did God give each woman her body and free-will?

It would be good to note here that early Christian thought was that a baby became a person at birth because they knew that so many pregnancies failed to come to term that it made no sense to them that God would instill a soul into baby when 70% of the pregancies failed before a live birth.
 
Are you claiming something you can't understand, isn't possible for G-d? I mean, I personally don't understand how merely G-d's words can speak the universe into existence, but I am ok with the idea there are things about G-d that I won't understand this side of Heaven.

You can't see where the Bible defines faith? John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

Seems pretty clear.

Yea, clear as mud:D.

You are a confused Christian. You believe in God and that God is all powerful. You believe this to be true because the Bible tells you so. Yet you don't understand how God is able to do everything, but somehow you are quite comfortable knowing that it must be true, I presume that you believe this to be true because the Bible tells you that it is how it happened.

In other words, you know there are a lot of things you don't understand, but you accept the Bible as the proper explanation explanation simply because you don't have any other better explanations.

That is TRUE faith... accepting an explanation of something that does not have the slightest evidence of proof!
 
The one rule that everyone should respect is to never expect other people to hold to your religious standards. That was how this thread began..
No, the thread did not begin on any religious note.

I believe you may be transferring your previous experience of others onto me merely because I used the word God.

I mentioned no religion of any kind in the opening post of this thread.

Remember, to be a religion, a philosophy must contain both a tenet of "souls" and a tenet of "before/after life", none of which are even remotely inferred in the opening post.

A tenet of God does not define a religion, can be present when the above two definitively required tenets are absent and can be absent in the presence of the above two definitively required tents.

Thus the presence of God does not a religion make.

God and religion are not mutually inclusive.

Indeed, I am not religious (I don't have a religious belief/faith) in any way.


with Chip professing that his views about life
Again, you are in error.

I merely took historic details and condensed them into the openning post summary.

This isn't about "my" views about life (my personal philosophy); it is about my understanding (objective analysis) with respect to the topic.


If the word God bothers you, feel free to exchange God for any other foundationally causal manifestation -- nature, the universe, a higher power, etc. -- that, understandably, exists and overrides our human authority in the matter.

The bottom line is that humanity historically has attributed creative authority of human beings ultimately to a greater power, a greater power that overrules our jurisdiction on the matter.

That's all that I presented.

We recognize that when it comes to the creation of living human beings, that we cannot usurp the authority of the creator, the creator who isn't us.


are universal truths.
Again, merely my very confidently obtained and presented objective analysis of human history with regard to the realities of rights.

If what I present is a universal truth, the fact that it is would simply be unknown to me.

That a presentation passes the tests of rational reason and common sense in presenting a summary of historical behavior does warrant merit.


To my mind,
Indeed ... as it is to every poster's.

Some people, however, also post from their true heart.


you have every right to practice your own beliefs as long as they do not infringe on mine.
So if two mafiosos believe that murder is okay then one of them has "every right" to murder the other???

Oh ... you mean "infringe on my rights".

So really what you're saying is that it isn't about "beliefs" at all, it's about behavior.

And thus the onus on any maxim of behavior that is judged on the presence or absence of rights is: what behavior is a right and what isn't?

The opening post in this thread presents my understanding of the method for determining what is and isn't a right and what happens when two people both have a right about something but the two rights are in conflict.
 
I apologize for my careless leaps of logic with regard to your belief system.

I am not an accomplished student of philosophy and I appeared to have misused the term "universal truth" as it is used in academia. However, in popular vernacular the term is often used rather pejoratively when speaking about a concept that one person holds to be applicable in every circumstance without exception.

Stating that the right to life is supported by analyzing historic trends seems wrong. In fact, paleontologist have uncovered evidence that mankind (indeed all spectrum of life) have been intentionally killing each other since life began on earth. More currently, wars and intended killing has been sanctioned by virtually all cultures. Of course killing and murder have two different meanings. I agree that historic evidence shows that murder is an action rejected by most societies.

It seems my karma ran over your dogma - and I am sorry:) , but still hold my right as an American to disagree. And it we certainly do disagree, there is no doubting that!
 
I'm curious why you would believe that scripture. Of all the scriptures written in all the holy books in human history, why would you focus on this one scripture and decide to believe it? Is there single iota of ANYTHING to make you think it's true, or is it just that you need/want to believe something and this appealed to you? This is an honest question, I don't believe in reincarnation because I don't "believe" things in that way, but I think that it makes a lot of sense. I see multiple lives as being no more miraculous than a single life and we certainly cannot learn all we can here in just one lifetime. I have no reason to think that souls (if they exist) have gender, so how will you learn what it's like to be a woman if you don't come back for a life as one? I've always thought that logically the idea of one life and then non-existence or some kind of Judgment was unbelieveable, it seems to make God too small, it makes our "immortal souls" almost like throwaway batteries which cannot be recharged but instead get sent to the garbage or the Heavenly Storage Yard.

I will assume you mean the entire text, and not that specific verse. The reasons I believe the Bible is multi-fold.

First, because of it's historicity. It is historically accurate. People and places indicated in the Bible have been shown over and over to be true.

Prior to the 1900s, the Hittites were considered made up, now the you can graduate with a doctorate degree in Hittitolgy at the University of Pennsylvania.

All the cities Abraham visited, have been discovered, including his home town of Ur. The Bible has even been accurate in some of the most insignificant of details.

For example the woman at the well who said while speaking to Jesus "how will you get a drink? You have no bucket and the well is very deep". Jacob's well, which has been excavated has been found to be 80 feet deep.

This is not some guy in a cave who says he heard something, nor someone in new york that claims he got golden tablets, nor someone sitting in a forest cross legged with his hands in the air. These are real people like Pontus Pilot, Herod, Nebuchadnezzar, the apostles and so on. These are real places, like Nineveh, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Rome and so on.

Second, because of the prophetic nature of the book. Thousands of prophesies are in this book. If the ones that were supposed to have come true, didn't you could point to that and prove it wrong. But you can't.

For example, Micah warned in 730 BC, that Zion, a central part of Jerusalem, would be plowed under like a field. Micah 3:11-12. In 135 AD, the Romans crushed Jerusalem, and used a massive plow on the area know as Zion.

Moses in 1400 BC, wrote the law that if the people of Israel turned against the messiah, that Israel would become a wasteland of salt and ashes. Deuteronomy 29:23. Mark Twain wrote in 1867 "Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes… the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies… Palestine is desolate and unlovely… It is a hopeless, dreary, heartbroken land."

Jesus said the people would be exiled and Israel over run with enemies. Luke 21:24. During the multiple Roman conquests of Israel, they were killed, and captured, and taken to countries throughout the Roman empire.

Isaiah in 700 BC, said that the Israelites would never be forgotten, nor would they disappear. Isaiah 49:13-17. No matter how cultured they might become, no matter which land they are in, Jews have always been an identifiable race of people.

Ezekiel in 590 BC said G-d would bring his people out of the lands they were, with a mighty hand and even with wrath. Ezekiel 20:34. The Zion movement to repopulate the land of Israel existed for many years prior to WW2, but it wasn't until Hitler and Stalin persecuted the Jews, that this actually began to happen.

To add briefly, the Bible claimed Israel would be reborn, that it would be a better and stronger nation than ever before, that it would be a terrible swift sword (six day war), that it would be a flower in the desert, that they would be a thorn in the gentile nations. And honestly, I can't even begin to list all the prophecies in the Bible that have come true. Not including some prophecies that are in process, like the one world currency, the one world government, the one world religion, the 'mark' on the hand and forehead for commerce and so on.

Finely, personal experience and seeing G-d work myself. This will be short because obviously there is no way to explain to you what I have personally witnessed, nor could you understand something that G-d has obviously not given to you to know. To put simply, when you meet G-d directly, it's as real as your wife of your parents, or your children. This is why the apostles were willing to die even when they could have been set free by simply saying it wasn't true. The list of millions of people whose personal testimonies are beyond number or comparison. Try Unshackled radio program for one.

Many people become senile as they age.

Funny how quickly atheists attack their own. But at least you are consistent.

I will assume you're referring to abortion since babies don't generally infringe upon people's rights--except by throwing up on them.

There is no better example of an action being between God and a specific person than in the case of abortion. The fetus is a parasite living off the mother's body, if she doesn't want it, who am I to tell she has to continue to keep it?

Again, this indicates to me a double standard since once born, a child is still 100% dependent on it's mother and in effect her body, since a child will undoubtedly die without his mothers milk and care. Should a mother be given the right to ditch the 1 year old parasite, since who are you to tell her otherwise?

The fetus, or whatever word you will sub in for baby, is still a human. Again, use DNA if you wish to prove otherwise.

I wish there would never be another abortion, but I also realize that as long as that fetus is not viable and inside the mother's body, then the mother has the final say--it's between her and God. It's difficult to give others the right to choose how they use their own bodies, but I think it's necessary. Did God give each woman her body and free-will?

It would be good to note here that early Christian thought was that a baby became a person at birth because they knew that so many pregnancies failed to come to term that it made no sense to them that God would instill a soul into baby when 70% of the pregancies failed before a live birth.

Let's skip what some random specific sect said somewhere, and worry about what the bible says.

"Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?" (Job 31:15)

"Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother's womb." (Psalms 22:9-10)

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them." (Psalms 139:13-16)

"Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, `Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen." (Isaiah 44:2)

"Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone," (Isaiah 44:24)

Clearly the bible teaches that from conception, you are human and a value to G-d.

The list of Prophets said to have been called from before they were born include Pual, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Samson.

Even in old testament law, there was value placed on the child before birth, and G-d was said to have judged nations that 'ripped open the womb'.

It seems rather clear to me that the Biblical view is that murder is wrong, even if we're talking about babies not yet born.
 
I apologize for my careless leaps of logic with regard to your belief system.

I am not an accomplished student of philosophy and I appeared to have misused the term "universal truth" as it is used in academia. However, in popular vernacular the term is often used rather pejoratively when speaking about a concept that one person holds to be applicable in every circumstance without exception.

Stating that the right to life is supported by analyzing historic trends seems wrong. In fact, paleontologist have uncovered evidence that mankind (indeed all spectrum of life) have been intentionally killing each other since life began on earth. More currently, wars and intended killing has been sanctioned by virtually all cultures. Of course killing and murder have two different meanings. I agree that historic evidence shows that murder is an action rejected by most societies.

It seems my karma ran over your dogma - and I am sorry:) , but still hold my right as an American to disagree. And it we certainly do disagree, there is no doubting that!

You are recognized by me as a good debater and welcomed to this forum.
 
Yea, clear as mud:D.

You are a confused Christian. You believe in God and that God is all powerful. You believe this to be true because the Bible tells you so. Yet you don't understand how God is able to do everything, but somehow you are quite comfortable knowing that it must be true, I presume that you believe this to be true because the Bible tells you that it is how it happened.

In other words, you know there are a lot of things you don't understand, but you accept the Bible as the proper explanation explanation simply because you don't have any other better explanations.

That is TRUE faith... accepting an explanation of something that does not have the slightest evidence of proof!

I knew when I read this that you had judged Andy's reasons for believing without understanding them yourself.

Andy told us (a little later) why he believes and it is clear that the most important is simply that he has experienced god first hand. This subjective kind of experience cannot be shared with you but it is compelling and convincing for those who have it. I have no doubt that Andy will not think his own senses to be lying to him. The rest of the reasons he gives are evidence though they may not be absolutely irrefutable. Which is of course why one still needs faith. Bible believers have faith but then again so do bible doubters.

I too have had a personal experience with God and I am also not prone to any sort of hallucination being a rational man with a good sense of reality I trust my experience. many other Christians have had similar experiences. This is no reason for you to convert as you obviously have not shared that experience. But you might want to be open to the possibility that one day you might.
 
I'm curious why you would believe that scripture. Of all the scriptures written in all the holy books in human history, why would you focus on this one scripture and decide to believe it? Is there single iota of ANYTHING to make you think it's true, or is it just that you need/want to believe something and this appealed to you? This is an honest question,

There is quite a lot of evidence supporting Christianity. You can point out that it is not absolutely convincing to the skeptic but that does not stop it from being evidence. When one starts getting that skeptical about evidence then one has to admit that based on the same demands for proof that empiricism cannot be proven either.

Since empiricism can't be proven and Christianity can't be proven then either position is a matter of faith. Though I don't mean to juxtapose them against each other as if one can't ascribe to both like the founders of empiricism did. One just needs to recognize the limits of subjective experience as well as the limits of empirical experience.
 
Werbung:
I cannot see where the Christian Bible defines faith. But even if you use the word “define” abstractly, much of the Bible is telling you to believe in things that are magical and highly improbable. One of the most fundamental Christian beliefs is that Jesus existed on earth in three forms: as God himself, as God’s son, and as the spirit of God. This is something that you cannot blow off as having some abstract meaning - as a Christian you must believe that as the literal truth.
There are many many places in the bible where faith is described, or illustrated, or in some way has light shed on what it means. Andy gave one such example because in it the passage says that faith is a matter of hearing the word and believing on Christ. As you can see there is an element of evidence here as one must evaluate and judge the validity of the word one hears.

I would choose the passage that says:

"Faith is the evidence of things unseen" because it addresses your statement that Christians must believe no questions asked.

I see from your statement above that you have misunderstood some of that facts of Christianity. Perhaps you really do understand then but just were lazy as you typed that? Though it might be that you have not taken the time to evaluate it thoroughly. It might be that you have judged it wrongly.
If you can see reason and logic in the Bible, it certainly a evades me. However, I certainly would never try to change your views regarding religion. Finding God is a very personal experience. Trying to convince other people to change their views about spirituality is both a useless endeavor and has no purpose.

One might wonder why so many others see logic in it but you don't. Might they see something that you have just missed to date?
 
Back
Top