From where are rights derived?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Everyone equally gets wet when standing in the rain. The problem is that if there is not a specific reference point or Lawgiver, then every person will come up with their own idea of what is evil or not. That would mean a wide variation of perspectives concerning what is good or evil, even if the majority of people agree about the big evil events that occur. Clearly, Hitler determined in his own mind what he was doing was okay.

Sorry, but that's remarkably shallow, and demonstrates a really impoverished view of humans.

That impoverished view of humans, however, I guess is hardly surprising in Christians -- who spend much of their "spritual energy" reminding themselves how absolutely evil every human is. As another Christian member, in another thread, stated just yesterday about the: "spiritual warfare that exist in his heart - greed, avarice, licentiousness, hedonism, hate and arrogance are the catalysts behind all man's destructive objectives ever since time began. His wickedness defies his intellect..."

Hardly surprising from a sick cultic notion that "all men are initially [from birth] condemned to hell.." (From a BBC report of an evangelical document published in 2000 and called "The Nature of Hell.")

 

[InChrist]

Sorry, but that's remarkably shallow, and demonstrates a really impoverished view of humans.

That impoverished view of humans, however, I guess is hardly surprising in Christians -- who spend much of their "spritual energy" reminding themselves how absolutely evil every human is. As another Christian member, in another thread, stated just yesterday about the: "spiritual warfare that exist in his heart - greed, avarice, licentiousness, hedonism, hate and arrogance are the catalysts behind all man's destructive objectives ever since time began. His wickedness defies his intellect..."

Hardly surprising from a sick cultic notion that "all men are initially [from birth] condemned to hell.." (From a BBC report of an evangelical document published in 2000 and called "The Nature of Hell.")

The biblical view of humans is far from impoverished. On the contrary, humans created in God’s image, though impacted by sin, have intrinsic eternal value. The entire theme of the Bible is God’s love and redemptive plan to deliver humanity from self-destruction into eternal freedom and perfect love.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The biblical view of humans is far from impoverished. On the contrary, humans created in God’s image, though impacted by sin, have intrinsic eternal value. The entire theme of the Bible is God’s love and redemptive plan to deliver humanity from self-destruction into eternal freedom and perfect love.

That is manifestly untrue, since God -- in the Bible -- was uninterested in all the people's then living all over this planet that the Bible authors knew diddly-squat about. If salvation is only available through Christ -- then God abandoned everybody (i.e. the majority of humanity at the time) to hell that wasn't centered around a few bits of the Mediterranean.

 

[InChrist]

That is manifestly untrue, since God -- in the Bible -- was uninterested in all the people's then living all over this planet that the Bible authors knew diddly-squat about. If salvation is only available through Christ -- then God abandoned everybody (i.e. the majority of humanity at the time) to hell that wasn't centered around a few bits of the Mediterranean.

I don’t think you understand the scriptures, your view is shortsighted and limited compared to the larger, eternal perspective and plan of God. Yes, God gave distinct revelation through the nation of Israel and Christ came to earth at a specific point in history, nevertheless, according to the scriptures God’s revelation has been made to everyone throughout time through the creation and each person’s conscience. Everyone knows something about God, from one degree or another, a little or a lot. Each person will only be judged by the information they had and their response. No one will end up in hell because God wasn’t interested or because they were clueless or because they were not loved by God….

…For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Everyone equally gets wet when standing in the rain. The problem is that if there is not a specific reference point or Lawgiver, then every person will come up with their own idea of what is evil or not. That would mean a wide variation of perspectives concerning what is good or evil, even if the majority of people agree about the big evil events that occur. Clearly, Hitler determined in his own mind what he was doing was okay.

Or we just acknowledge we are biologically social animals and all of us trying to make it through this profoundly amazing, confusing and difficult phenomenon known as life, and accept it's better amd easier for us all if we just get along amf help each other. Even Jesus mostly promoted a live and let life lifestyle, even if the wording is problematic at times.

 

[syo]

Fundamentally, from where do you believe that rights come from??

CULTS. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE.

 

[InChrist]

Or we just acknowledge we are biologically social animals and all of us trying to make it through this profoundly amazing, confusing and difficult phenomenon known as life, and accept it's better amd easier for us all if we just get along amf help each other. Even Jesus mostly promoted a live and let life lifestyle, even if the wording is problematic at times.

I agree, it is important to encourage and help one another through this life and all that it involves. From my perspective, Jesus provides the greatest wisdom for getting along and the necessary encouragement and strength.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is manifestly untrue, since God -- in the Bible -- was uninterested in all the people's then living all over this planet that the Bible authors knew diddly-squat about. If salvation is only available through Christ -- then God abandoned everybody (i.e. the majority of humanity at the time) to hell that wasn't centered around a few bits of the Mediterranean.

Some take that view but I suspect it's more common among hardline conservative Evangelicals. Others often believe in what basically amounts to some sort of free pass for "virteous pagans" (Dante) that spares that either allows them into the Kingdom because their god doesn't punish the ignorant* or not letting them in but sparing them the punishments of Hell (such as Dante).

*I think it's allegedly a Native American who exclaimed to a missionary he was better off before and cursed the missionary for bringing such a cursed knowledge to him.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Some take that view but I suspect it's more common among hardline conservative Evangelicals. Others often believe in what basically amounts to some sort of free pass for "virteous pagans" (Dante) that spares that either allows them into the Kingdom because their god doesn't punish the ignorant* or not letting them in but sparing them the punishments of Hell (such as Dante).

*I think it's allegedly a Native American who exclaimed to a missionary he was better off before and cursed the missionary for bringing such a cursed knowledge to him.

But all of that -- all of it, and all of every other theological argument, every apologetic ever written -- depends upon, but declines to show how, a very few very basic axioms.

Consider this -- suppose that I tell you, "I can't accept Euclid's 5 axioms, but never mind that, please explain the rest of his geometry in "The Elements." How far will we get? If I don't accept those very few, very basic truths, how are you going to explain any other proof? It's impossible, meaningless.

So, it is the same with faith. Religious apologists often claim that critics of religion are ignorant of the finer points of theology and doctrin, unread in theology. But that entirely misses the point! It is a waste of my time to do any of that until we've settled on what is really meant by the very fundamentals of the religious belief in question: what is God? how do you know? what is Scripture? why do you suppose it's not man-made? what is "God's plan?"

See, all those questions are left essentially unanswered -- unlike Euclid's axioms. But whatever assumption the apologist chooses to make about each of the questions is then folded into their resulting theology. It is exactly like Euclid trying to write and defend "The Elements" without first defining and justifying his axioms.

And where the heck can you go with that? (The answer, by the way, is anywhere you want -- since nothing is provable, everything can be assumed.)

 

[Heyo]

The problem is that if there is not a specific reference point or Lawgiver, then every person will come up with their own idea of what is evil or not.

Yes, that is a problem but it is even more your problem than that of a non believer. With thousands of gods and tens or hundred of thousands of denominations, you don't have an objective law giver either.

 

[wellwisher]

Yes, that is a problem but it is even more your problem than that of a non believer. With thousands of gods and tens or hundred of thousands of denominations, you don't have an objective law giver either.

This is where we use logic and math see where all the various systems overlap; common human needs.

When the founding fathers coined the phrase, God given rights, and wrote the Constitution, only land owners could vote. This was typically men, since owning and developing land is hard work. Owning land requires a high level of self reliance and self sufficiency; homesteading. Home and land ownership is work and has expenses. Dependency was not allowed to vote, which in modern times, would cripple the Democrat Party.

If you do not have self sufficiency and self reliance, you will always have lingering need, and therefore a willingness to deprive others of their rights; relative morality, by using the powers of the dark side; lie, steal, cheat, commandeer, redistribute, etc.

The political Left may have a hard time understanding the concept of human rights, since they are usually not taught the key to rights is self reliance. They are taught more like the ways of being part of a herd animal army, who vote to away the rights of others, to feed their own real and programmed needs.

The idea of the American dream was about a land of opportunity, where one could reach that state of self sufficiency, where a man's home becomes his castle. As owner of the castle, one is like a mini monarch, with the Divine rights of a little king, in the microcosm of their home. But that comes only with hard work, and not by hand outs that require a quid pro quo, that almost always limits the right of others through loss of income.

Freedom of speech is a right. In your own home you can say anything. Although Big Brother may be listening. That right can only be fully expressed at home, where you are self sufficient. But if you are not self reliant and not self sufficient, you may need to limit what you can say, since silence on many things will become part of the quid pro quo of life. Almost all censorship comes from the political left who represent those who are most dependent.

If you were rich and self sufficient and you wished to undergo transgender changes, you are free to do what you want, without fan fare, and without depriving anyone, since you have you own resources. But if you are more of a dependent but have perceived need and cannot provide for yourself, you need too team up to steal from the tax payer, to deprive them of their rights; taxes that could go to their own dreams. If there are winners and losers, these are not rights, but entitlements, which almost always come at the expense of someone else rights.

The Libertarian philosophy is about limited government since life is viewed from the eye of the self sufficient who only need government to protect them from the predators down the food chain; common defense. The rest you can do.

 

[Heyo]

This is where we use logic and math see where all the various systems overlap; common human needs.

When the founding fathers coined the phrase, God given rights, and wrote the Constitution, only land owners could vote. This was typically men, since owning and developing land is hard work. Owning land requires a high level of self reliance and self sufficiency; homesteading. Home and land ownership is work and has expenses. Dependency was not allowed to vote, which in modern times, would cripple the Democrat Party.

If you do not have self sufficiency and self reliance, you will always have lingering need, and therefore a willingness to deprive others of their rights; relative morality, by using the powers of the dark side; lie, steal, cheat, commandeer, redistribute, etc.

The political Left may have a hard time understanding the concept of human rights, since they are usually not taught the key to rights is self reliance. They are taught more like the ways of being part of a herd animal army, who vote to away the rights of others, to feed their own real and programmed needs.

The idea of the American dream was about a land of opportunity, where one could reach that state of self sufficiency, where a man's home becomes his castle. As owner of the castle, one is like a mini monarch, with the Divine rights of a little king, in the microcosm of their home. But that comes only with hard work, and not by hand outs that require a quid pro quo, that almost always limits the right of others through loss of income.

Freedom of speech is a right. In your own home you can say anything. Although Big Brother may be listening. That right can only be fully expressed at home, where you are self sufficient. But if you are not self reliant and not self sufficient, you may need to limit what you can say, since silence on many things will become part of the quid pro quo of life. Almost all censorship comes from the political left who represent those who are most dependent.

If you were rich and self sufficient and you wished to undergo transgender changes, you are free to do what you want, without fan fare, and without depriving anyone, since you have you own resources. But if you are more of a dependent but have perceived need and cannot provide for yourself, you need too team up to steal from the tax payer, to deprive them of their rights; taxes that could go to their own dreams. If there are winners and losers, these are not rights, but entitlements, which almost always come at the expense of someone else rights.

The Libertarian philosophy is about limited government since life is viewed from the eye of the self sufficient who only need government to protect them from the predators down the food chain; common defense. The rest you can do.

I guess you were answering to a different post or person?
Otherwise this is a total non sequitur.

 

[wellwisher]

I guess you were answering to a different post or person?
Otherwise this is a total non sequitur.

The overall topic is about where do rights comes from. Rights are inherent in human nature; life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This covers a wide range of personal goals and choices. However, to be able to express these innate rights, you need a platform of self sufficiency. If you do not have that platform, limits all be created, which then reduce your ability to pursuit of you innate rights.

This is why historically, the rich had much more in the way of flexibility in the pursuit of happiness. They could provide for themselves, under the radar. The rich person expressing their needs, with their own funds, does not impact my rights. I can do it too, if I work hard and reach a state, where I am self sufficient, and practical minded in terms of my rights. Then there is no harm to other people's rights.

Free speech is possible at this site, since it is like a self sufficient sanctuary for all who come. But outside these walls one may not be treated as self sufficient; no diplomatic immunity, and you may need to censor yourself; quid pro quo.

The idea of the American dream was connected to the land of opportunity; open land and lots of natural resources, where you can become self sufficient and practice rights, without taking away from others, so they lose their rights.

Pursuit of happiness will often requires money. If one is taxed too much, and your spendable income lowers, your right to pursue happiness is much harder to express; net loss of that right. Entitlements are not rights, since entitlement do not come from self sufficiency, or else you would do it under you own steam and not deprive others through higher taxes. This lowers the options of others, many who just get by, under their own steam.

Social spending used to be done by charity and volunteers. If you have a good spiritual ethic, this type of giving can be part of your pursuit of happiness; helping others is satisfying. This is not a loss, but gives you more rights; makes you happy. Now with Big Government forcing the result, it more like stealing for votes in a zero sum game; loss of rights is the price of entitlements. Rights are not lost when you have the option to do good; charity, but this changes when it becomes a forced obligation; ties your down so you cannot pursue happiness as easy.

The big problem is most people want to help people in need, but not always show them how to help themselves, since the latter is more work and is not how you grow government. But lingering and expanding dependency requires loss of rights, especially at the lower end of self sufficiency; rich get richer and lower middle class become more dependent with less rights.

Jesus preached about blessed is the poor. The poor have little resources to pursue happiness though material things. Rather than make being poor a psychological liability, the idea was there are many free things in nature and culture from which one can derive happiness, such as fishing by the river, or sitting with friends.

Having too much of material desire, can cause you to psychologically cheat your own rights, since you may always feel deprived and may even start to cut throats, to get what you think you need, depriving others of rights.

The political tactic of making people angry about their situation, amplifies what they see as rights, unfulfilled, which then creates an entitlement mentality, since they can never seem to reach full resolution, due to all the induce resentment enhancement. They do not even try to pursue self sufficiency.

We have all have good and bad things happen in our lives. If you fixate on the bad, you will feel deprived, but if you fixate on the good, you fell more satisfied. The victim game in politics amplifies the feeling of lost rights, so you can't take the first steps toward self sufficiency. Too much still needs to be made up for, first; overcome the psychological loss of rights.

Advertising and marketing can enhance the material social obligations until you feel deprived. The poor dress of the hippy generation was a departure from materialism, to simplicity for the pursuit of happiness. That made it much easier to reach a level of self sufficiency, and satisfy the right to party with friends new and old. It had an affect on the cooperate bottom line.