by Shining One 69 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Ermmm, no it isn't.While I don't particularly like the way Rex represents his form of "Christianity", neither will I let pass something that is blatantly in error.
Please explain. God decided that there was one set of rules in the old covenant, yet all those living in the new covenant were exempt from those rules. Seems like a change of mind to me. In addition, god had no problem ordering the slaughter of thousands in the old testament wars.
Hiya pal. I'd be happy to explain.
The general Christian view is that God is unchangable and has had it all worked out from the beginning without deviation. Some denominations take the view that what He "reveals" to mankind might vary from our perspective, but that's only one view in a very diverse religion.
My personal take on it is that individuals interpreted their providence as the hand of God, and recorded it as they subjectively observed it, leaving us to do a double-interpretation on a set of events that we didn't experience first hand. For a goatherder, in the brutal environment of the bronze-age Middle East, God would no doubt have appeared austere. For a Pharisee, in Roman occupied Judea, another set of interpretations prevailed.
Just my 2p
>I can't believe you think that is an argument. Right back at you; "sez who"? Please prove your beliefs in a demonstrable and repeatable fashion. And do >yourself a favour and look up 'Presuppositionalist', and see how the description fits you. My answer is - God! My authority and source of WoldView is God, the one who only is source of reality. So question is question of authority, and Atheism just dies against it as it does not recognizes trascendent source of authority and truth. So only source is left - human - where we get 6 billion "truths" which are equivalent. Why should I demonstrate and reapeat to you anything? Don't turn question asked to you against me. I don't claim that real is only something you can observe. Reality does not care about your proof. >Of course, you can't; you might have an INTERNAL proof, but then there are (for example) people wearing penis gourds and body-paint who claim they have an >INTERNAL proof of things which contradict your beliefs and neither you or these hypothetical witch-doctors can prove who is right. Question is, what for you is proof? Do we play by your or by my rules? Why your "proof" is better then my? Again sez who that reality is real only when it is demonstrated to you? You are not source of reality and you are not the one who judges what is and what is not real! So... proof by your or by my definiton? >Is it my duty to accept secular definition of rights? >As a human being? Yes, Sez Who? >I believe What else you believe? And why you want your system of beliefs to enforce on me? >so IF you are tolerant Definition of tolerance : Permissible degree of variation from a pre-set standard. Who defines standard? Are we talking here about your or my standard? Are you tolerant by my or by your standard? And if your standard then - Sez Who? >of others beliefs Comunism, Fascism? What so wrong about these systems of beliefs? Or we are not so tolerant to anything WE define as bad? Sez Who? >Or do I have rights to define my rights just like you have rights to define your rights? >Rights are defined by facts, not opinions. You are entitled to your own opinion, under which you might consider that you have some different or superior set >of rights. However, we all share the same facts, so if facts are used to determine rights they should be applicable to you, me, everybody. Even if you don't >like some rights people have as a result of a factual determination of rights. Are you speaking about evolution as fact whcih defines that black and white man are different and man and woman are diferent. These are facts, so question is why do we apply same rights to different facts? What is fact? Who defines it? Why your definition of fact is better then my? You say - observable and repeatable things are facts. So you say that history can't be fact. So we can't base rights on historical evidence, which are observable very limited and NOT repeatable, so actually we rely on opinions of historians about some shards of evidence! Sez Who? >Look, you're supposedly a Christian; why do I have to remind you that you shouldn't judge others? By your own beliefs you do NOT have the right to judge >others. I can't judge their heart and thougts which I just don't see. But I can judge their works and words. I know my faith and system of beliefs. But... again... you try to escape answer by attacking my system of faith. So which one system it is... your by your standards or my by my standards? >Do I discriminate gays when claim I don't like them or they discriminate me calling me homophobic? >YOU discriminate ("to make a difference in treatment or favour on a basis other than individual merit"). THEY describe; homophones practise homophobia >("irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"). Sez Who? THEY? Why they should be my authority if I can't be their? >If you don't like being a bigot ("a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"), don't try to change the meaning >of words, change your opinions. Again. Sez Who? :) Why you try to enforce your opinion of what is right and wrong on me and when I try to do it to you, then it is discimination. Do we have here double standards? >Why are you trying so hard to make it look like you are hard done by? Is anyone obliging you to marry a man? Is anyone obliging you to have sex before >marriage? Of course you have the right to a different opinion. You just don't have the right to force people to comply with your opinion. And have you rights to enforce people to comply with your opinion? But you are obligating me to live in the socety I don't want to live in. So I have rights to oppose it, and you have rights to fight for society you want to live in. These are our rights yours are the same as my no better and no worth. >Provided someone leads their lives peacefully and does not harm others or otherwise infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others by their actions, what >right has ANYONE to stop them from doing what they want to do just because such actions are (in another person's opinion) 'unacceptable'? See your opinion implies of existence of some trascendent truth "does not harm others". But atheistis are mostly Darwinists which bases it's claims on the very opposite rule - "Genocide is the way life shapes". So why don't you go to the end of the atheism but stop at some trascendent truth which you can't proove is ok. If there is no God, then there is NO rule you can legally stop me from killing you - it will be force of evlution and fittest of both of us will survive and you can't say I am doing evil, as there is no such term without trascendent truth and God. >Being black or Jewish has been 'unacceptable' to various people in the past; normally they quote the Bible to support their hate. Show me that place where Bible calls nationality a sin? >How do we know you are not just another hate-monger twisting Scripture to your own ends as anti-Semites and racists have in the past? Go read bible and see what it says and then judge me if I call sin what Bible calls sin and do I call sin something Bible does not call sin. You can check upon me very eazy. Where do I can check on you? What is your base... and will it be the same tomorrow? >I'm not saying that to be rude, I really want you to show that, unlike the many Christian denominations who have retracted racist or anti-Semite doctrines >after centuries of hate, you won't turn around in the future week and say 'oh, sorry, being nasty to gay people is wrong, I've changed my mind, sorry'; this >is effectively what the anti-Semites and racists using the Bible to justify themselves had to do, and as apologies go it stank. As I sayed. When text of God of Word will change and God will change definition of sin, then I will change my attitude to homosexuality (not men themselves). And I don't find any place in Bible where being black or Jew is somehow connected with definition of sin. More, there is specific claim, that there is no difference in Christ if you are jew, greek or whatever nationality. The same about gender. BUT Bible does not say the same about sexual orientation, and calls homosexuality a sin. So here is my base, and the text was there whole 2000 years and I am not responsible for somebody who twists what is written. >Who appointed you the spokesmen for the 2.1 billion Christians on this planet? Why my opinion is worth then any other? You wan't to take my rights of expression? And I am not speaking for them I am just pointing that if you will let majority to speak, probably you will not have rights to speak atall :) >Some of them are gay and consider themselves JUST as much of a Christian as you, if not more so due to your intolerance of peaceful fellow humans. Many >Christians think that anyone opposing homosexuality is missing the divine message of love we can read in the Bible and swallowing down the traditional >prejudices and hatred of the humans that authored the work. There is difference between gay christian and gay who says that homosexuality is NOT a sin. The same goes with any other sin. Christian opinion on what is sin is directly stated in Scripture. What Scripture calls sin - is sin, what Scripture does not call sin, man can't call sin too. So I believe there are meny homosexyal christians and actually there is NO christians who are not sinners (spit in face to anyone who claims he is sinless by himself). But christians does not tries to make not sin something is sin and make sin something what is not sin. It is secular world which all the time tries shape and reshape good/bad notaion thus actually shaking all moral base for society thus making society ignorant to anything. And such society is much eazy to rule... the society which does not have standard to judge their rulers and society which even does not have confidence that it has rights to judge the goverment. >It is not the number of people approving of an action that determines whether it is right or wrong; provided someone leads their lives peacefully and does >not harm others or otherwise infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others by their actions, what right has ANYONE to stop them from doing what they want >to do? If there is no God then everything is allowed. Even more, by the grand rule of "survival of fittest" genocide is the best and very natural way! >Neither a majority or a minority of opinion has the right to infringe the freedom of a peaceful person doing no harm to others, even if that person is the >ONLY person exercising that freedom. Who defines what IS harm and what is NOT harm? And when there is choice between several harms, which one takes precedence and Why? >That is what human rights is about. It is about the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. A peaceful individual doing no harm to others should be allowed to do what the >hell they please within those confines because that is their right as an individual. I have rights because I have rights? Sez Who? And who defines what is harm and what is not harm? Why gay parade is not harm to christians, why abortion is not harm to baby, and why euthanasia is not harm to ill people? And why Christian opposition to harm babies, values of family IS Harm? Sez Who? >I don't have to like it. You don't have to like it. But unless we can prove that persons ACTIONS harm or otherwise infringe the freedom of others, we have to >let them do it. So what is being taken as proof? Actually what is definition of harm? Today even saying color of mans skin is HARM to them? Why? Why the INDIVIDUAL is allowed to define what is harm to him and what is not? This is how you give Individual rights to rule the majority. What is Harm? Who defines it? Phisical injury? Obviously something else? Mental injury? Well... it depends on mental helth and you can simulate it to gain some advantage. What is Harm and how do you prove it? >You would think that as you discriminate against people for reasons OTHER than personal merit. Some heterosexuals are dreadful parents, as are some gay >people. Why not base your opinion on the individuals rather than your opposition against an entire sexual orientation? Basing discrimination against a >physical trait or behaviour that doesn't harm others - whether that is skin colour or sexuality - is still bigotry of the lowest form. Well how homosexuals are harmed if they are not allowed to have marriage which requires fulfillement of some prerequirements. Family is given it's rights because it produces tax payers. Gay marriage does not produce such additional value to society, so they can't be provided with additional rights. Or we have disadvantage... they take, but does not give back. >Ah... please confirm whether you are declaring some people are sub-human on account of their sexual orientation. I want to know what I am dealing with. I declare, that rights are given to have some mechanism working. Families have their rights coz they produce tax payers. Gays can't have the same rights as they don't provide the same value. Ofcourse about job and other things, there I claim that no sexual orientation can be considered. Or human has rights to live... why it is not applied to unborn humans? Why women rights of choice is higher then humans right to live? I am against giving rights to somebody who does not fulfill requirements to gain the raights. >By your spelling I take you to be a German native speaker... is that correct? No. Latvian. Sorry, my english is terrible :(
Sorry.. for formatting...
So then it is sign I have to shut up
I havent read all the great replies, but I feel compelled to say that I think it is sad when religion drums it into the heads of its adherents that they cannot know what is right and wrong without someone else more holier to tell them what is the right path.
That is just rubbish and a power racket.
Where have all the "holy" people we all revere and respect gotten their knowledge and teachings?
From their own hearts! Their own meditations upon what is holy and respectful and what works.
Any of us can develop a godly spirit as a human being.
I dont understand discussions about absolute truth. I think that is dangerous thinking.
Simple truth and reality and doing what is right according to conscience and the principles the holy men have shared with us such as "Doing to others what you would have them do to you"
is a healthier discussion which leads to peace and unity between members of the human family.
Am I rambling? It is because the subject is a little over my head.
Sorry.
I am just a flower at heart.
Anewme
So is God capable of changing his mind? What happens to truth then?
Shazard
Which god is your god and why is your claim better than similar claims made by other people on behalf of other gods??
Why does YOU saying something make what you say right?
There are Muslims and Hindus who would say exactly what you say (that their authority and worldview came from god and that god was the only source of reality), but obviously you would disagree with them and they with you and each other. Which of the claims is right Shazard?
Anyone can flap their gums and say there's a god and they know what he wants. Actually proving it is a different thing altogether, and all you have proved is you have a very high opinion of your own opinion and absolutely NOTHING other than words to show why you're right and no one else is. I note you've not checked on the definiton of presuppositionalism...
So question is question of authority, and Atheism just dies against it as it does not recognizes trascendent source of authority and truth.
Please don't evade the point. Atheism doesn't recognise a 'trascendent source of authority and truth' as none has ever been proven. You are acting as if it is proven that god exists. Additionally you are acting as if you and those whom agree with you are the only persons who know what god wants. Just like everyone else making such claims, you cannot prove god exists, or prove that you have the correct interpretation of what god wants.
If you fail to demonstrate your beliefs you are an empty vessel and a clanging cymbal, more concerned with elevation of opinion to an object of worship than with anything to do with god. I'll judge a tree according to its fruits, just as Jesus directed, and as yet you have no fruits... Jesus' Apostles demonstrated and proved their arguments as best they could, they didn't just say "I know god and you don't" and then refuse to back their claims. Why are you claiming to be Christian yet not acting like one?
Don't turn question asked to you against me.
I'll do what I like. If your questions show you in an unfavourable light, ask better questions. Don't make you making yourself look bad my problem.
I've already stated what proof would be; repeatable and observable. What purpose does it serve to try and be evasive? The same level of proof that satisfies me g=9.8m/s/s at the Earth's surface, or that bananas go black if you put them in the fridge would satisfy me about god's existence.
You have no proof of your god, only a belief which is of no more worth than the next person's unproven beliefs. Why is your belief in god right and the next persons beliefs about Krisha wrong, or the beliefs about UFO's held by another person wrong? None of those people have scientifically acceptable proof for their beliefs - including you.
I believe What else you believe? And why you want your system of beliefs to enforce on me?
I'm not; you're the person claiming peaceful people doing no harm to others are 'wrong' despite the fact they've commited no harmful action. You would have them stop. You would enforce your beliefs on them. I'm quite happy for you to believe whatever you like provided you don't harm others or infringe on their freedoms. Thus far all you seem capable of doing is asking for definitions of reality and proof, both of which are answerable by a dictionary.
so IF you are tolerant Definition of tolerance : Permissible degree of variation from a pre-set standard. Who defines standard?
I've made it clear I think a standard like that should have a secular non-sectarian base. So the answer is people; and you will find an amasing number of people will agree that they should be allowed to act as they wish provided such actions don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others, and that other people should have the same rights as them. It's in many national constitutions, various multi-national declarations of human rights.
Are we talking here about your or my standard? Are you tolerant by my or by your standard? And if your standard then - Sez Who?
I have shown millions of people agree with the concept of human rights. Sez them. All you've shown is you think your opinion is better than anyone else's, but refuse to prove your opinion is worth anything. I know you think saying "sez who" is clever, but in light of the fact you've proved nothing about anything, it makes you look foolish, as you are basing your argument on YOUR SAY SO. I see no evidence or proof of god in what you say and I certainly don't want to worship your opinion.
of others beliefs Comunism, Fascism? What so wrong about these systems of beliefs? Or we are not so tolerant to anything WE define as bad? Sez Who?
Are you not reading what's been written? You ask what is wrong with facism or communism but both of them infringe the rights and freedoms of the individual. That is what is wrong with them.
>Or do I have rights to define my rights just like you have rights to define your rights?
I've answered this but you apparently didn't read or understand it. And AGAIN, you ignore I'm pointing out principles established by law and applying to billions of people. All you've shown me is your own opinion.
Are you speaking about evolution as fact whcih defines that black and white man are different and man and woman are diferent. These are facts, so question is why do we apply same rights to different facts?
Different? Yes, in some ways. Equal in rights - yes. Unless you're a misogynistic racist, in which case you'll disagree.
What is fact? Who defines it? Why your definition of fact is better then my?
What is god? Who defines it? Why your definition of god is beter than my? LOL Look in a dictionary for word meanings...
You say - observable and repeatable things are facts. So you say that history can't be fact. So we can't base rights on historical evidence, which are observable very limited and NOT repeatable, so actually we rely on opinions of historians about some shards of evidence! Sez Who?
It WAS observed, that's why we have a record of it. Outside of human times we have the silent witnesses; geology, palentology, dendrochronology. The reliability of records varies, but there are few periods of time we have no 'witness' for, no evidence to at least outline events. I think the opinions of scientists and historians based upon evidence are probably far far better than your opinion based on you thinking your opinion is worth something.
I mean, you think there is a rule in the Bible against abortion; there isn't. You show that you don't even really know what the book you claim you follow actually says. What is your opinon worth, in light of this evidnece and your failure to prove any of your claims?
And history IS repeatable. Oppress people, they rise up. People will do anything for power. When stars a certain size reach a certain age, they explode. When the temperature reaches a certain level, a cascade of events further reducing temperatures takes place. Etc..
>Look, you're supposedly a Christian; why do I have to remind you that you shouldn't judge others? By your own beliefs you do NOT have the right to judge >others.I can't judge their heart and thougts which I just don't see. But I can judge their works and words.
And I'm juding yours; so far you have shown no works and your words are empty; it is all about your opinion, you've not shown ONE fact supporting it, just evasion.
I know my faith and system of beliefs. But... again... you try to escape answer by attacking my system of faith.
Nope, I'm attacking you for your hypocracy and arrogance. You act like you have answers when you have no more answers than stone-age native who worships a rock. If you were tolerent of other beliefs I wouldn;t be in the least bit in attacking your beliefs; it's the fact you use your beliefs to justify intolerence that warrants attack.
>YOU discriminate ("to make a difference in treatment or favour on a basis other than individual merit"). THEY describe; homophones practise homophobia >("irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals").Sez Who?
Mirriam Webster. How dishonest is it to pretend words are as plastic and convenient as you do?! Rather than dealing with your lack of proof, your argue about what proof is when any fool knows what proof is. You do this to avoid admitting you have no proof other than your personal conviction you are right - which is no proof.
Rather than deal with the lack of facts supporting your claim, you argue about what facts are when any fool knows what facts are. You do this to avoid presenting the facts supporting your beliefs as you can't; you have none. You play with semantics to avoid admitting that facts are supported by proof and proof requires evidence and you have NONE.
THEY? Why they should be my authority if I can't be their?
THEY are not YOUR authority and YOU are not THEIR authority. You BOTH have to give the other the right to do as the other wishes. If either of you harms or otherwise infringes upon the freedoms and rights of others, you may be legaly restricted in your actions. It really is flabbergastingly simple.
>If you don't like being a bigot ("a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"), don't try to change the meaning >of words, change your opinions.Again. Sez Who? :)
Again, ass clown, Mirriam Webster.
Why you try to enforce your opinion of what is right and wrong on me and when I try to do it to you, then it is discimination. Do we have here double standards?
Now you are lying, making your claims to be a Christian utterly ridiculous. Please show me where I have tried to enforce my opinion of what is wrong and right on you, or retract the lie. I've made it very clear that you are entitled to your own opinion about things. What you fail to understand is an opinion unsupported by facts is worth very little in this context.
But you are obligating me to live in the socety I don't want to live in.
A secular society might not be one that you would want to live in, but you would be allowed to believe and do what you liked as long as you harmed no one.
You would obligate others to live in a society they didn't want to AND restrict peoples' freedom to do what they wanted even if they were harming no one.
The only opinion I (or most people) would enforce upon you is 'not to harm or infringe the rights and freedoms of others', and I think most people would be glad to be defended from a criminal who would harm others or infringe their rights and freedoms, so think this is a reasonable request that most would support.
It's like you complaining you have to live in a society where people wear yellow, but wanting to replace it with a society where no on can wear yellow. A child can figure out which of those societies infringes freedom more; yours.
See your opinion implies of existence of some trascendent truth "does not harm others".
No, that is a claim you are making; I make no claim to 'truth', I'm not that stupid, nor even that arrogant. What harm is is determined a thousand times a day in courts around the world and - because this is all about YOUR opinion and NOTHING to do with anything about god you can prove - again, you pretend an obvious word a child would understand is far more complicated than it is. Honest discussion would reveal the fallacies of your belief.
But atheistis are mostly Darwinists which bases it's claims on the very opposite rule - "Genocide is the way life shapes".
I at least know and have read the Bible, along with other religous books, so can claim competence to discuss religion with you. As you can't even define evolution correctly, it would seem you can make no claim to be able to discuss evolution in a competent manner. You know nothing about it. You are parrotting claims made by Creationism apologists, and as years of talking to such peope has shown me, they normally know NOTHING about evolution, so you are blind, being lead by the blind.
If there is no God, then there is NO rule you can legally stop me from killing you - it will be force of evlution and fittest of both of us will survive and you can't say I am doing evil, as there is no such term without trascendent truth and God.
More ignorance; I've made it very clear what I believe in, that individual humans have rights - as the American Declaration of Independence put it; "to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The vast majority of Atheists, humanists and religious people don't kill because they know it is wrong, because it would infringe on someone's rights - rights that every human has. They don't refrain from killing because they're afraid of god.
You are telling me that YOU would be a killer if god didn't tell you not to kill. You obviously don't have the respect for your fellow man's life that the majority do. Most of us know we wouldn't want to be killed and assume that other people feel the same. I am glad you have your religous fantasy to stop you from being a danger to society, as you sound dangerously amoral.
Show me that place where Bible calls nationality a sin?
Why should I? I never said the Bible calls nationality a sin. Are you trying to be deceptive about what I say? The curse on Ham and the Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus has been used to justify slavery and anti-Semtism by Christians.
Go read bible and see what it says and then judge me if I call sin what Bible calls sin and do I call sin something Bible does not call sin.
You are missing the point.
First, it is not about WHAT you say, it is about the AUTHORITY you put behind your claims. Some people, using the same book as you have justified things we both would call bad. This is a fact.
Others may have disagreed with them, but that didn't stop the people doing what you and I would both call bad claiming that god was the authority behind their claims - just as you claim god is the authority behind your claims - and they refused to provide reliable evidence that making black people slaves was right or killing Jews was wrong, as they didn't need proof, they THOUGHT they had authority from god.
Just as your claim to authority from god is based upon YOUR interpretation and YOUR opinion.
Just as we both disagree with slavers and anti-Semites, so too there are people who believe in god and the Bible who disagree with you. Why are you right and they wrong? How can you prove their claim of authority is not valid and yours is?
You can check upon me very eazy. Where do I can check on you? What is your base... and will it be the same tomorrow?
Please show me how human rights could change tomorrow. They depend upon being a human, a person, a self-aware being. Thus they can only change when someone is NOT a human, a person, a self-aware being.
As I sayed. When text of God of Word will change and God will change definition of sin, then I will change my attitude to homosexuality (not men themselves).
Another presuppostion. Why do you assume his book is the Bible and not the QU'ran or the Bhagadvita or any other claimed 'Holy' book? If you assume what it says about homosexuals is god's word, what about Israelite soldiers being able to take virgin girls as war booty and make them concubines? Is that god's word? It is in the Bible. What about god having bears kill 40 children? Is that god's word? It is in the Bible. What about god killing an entire generation of children? Is that god's word? It is in the Bible. What about god telling humans NOT to take out the sins of the father on the children and then elsewhere saying GOD would punish children for the sins of the parents? Is that god's word? It is in the Bible.
Hell, going by the Bible you;
1/ shouldn't eat shellfish
2/ Should have a fringe round the edge of your clothes
3/ Have the right to have slaves from neighbouring countries
4/ Can rape a girl and get away with it if you marry her
Is that god's word? It is in the Bible.
You are not worshipping god. You are worshipping words on paper. God is not there. If god was there, then all the dreadfull errors, mistakes, inaccuracies and barbarity that we read of in the Bible would not be there. Unless god is a barbarian who lies. And I don't believe that for a minute.
Of course, you could try and prove the Bible is god's word but I doubt if you'll even try.
You wan't to take my rights of expression?
You either have to be an idiot to claim that, or are trying to be deceptive about what I say. I have made it very clear whilst I might oppose what you say you're entitled to say it.
And I am not speaking for them I am just pointing that if you will let majority to speak, probably you will not have rights to speak at all :)
Putting a smiley after that is one of the sickest and creepiest things I've seen. You're making jokes about suppressing other human being's rights. There's a word for people like that.
There is difference between gay christian and gay who says that homosexuality is NOT a sin. The same goes with any other sin. Christian opinion on what is sin is directly stated in Scripture. What Scripture calls sin - is sin, what Scripture does not call sin, man can't call sin too.
Again, you are worshipping a book and assuming it has something to do with god because that's what you've been told, so you are worshipping both a book and the opinons of those who told you the Bible was god's word - they've obviously never PROVED it was god's word to you, you just leapt to that conclusion.
It is secular world which all the time tries shape and reshape good/bad notaion
You are in a way right. In the religious society of the mid 1800's, it was generally considered; 1/ blacks were inferior 2/ women were inferior 3/ war was justifiable on religious grounds. 4/ Children had no real rights as individuals
SECULAR SOCIETY CHANGED THIS.
If there is no God then everything is allowed.
You might think so, but if so you are amoral and a danger to soceity.
Even more, by the grand rule of "survival of fittest" genocide is the best and very natural way!
Please don't talk about evolution until you know what it is. It makes you look silly.
Neither a majority or a minority of opinion has the right to infringe the freedom of a peaceful person doing no harm to others, even if that person is the ONLY person exercising that freedom.Who defines what IS harm and what is NOT harm?
More repetative semantic slipperiness. Physical harm, financial harm, harm caused by dissemination of lies, harm caused or potentially caused by incitement of others to harmful actions. Courts typically define harm. Put some money in your hand and stick it AND THE HAND in the fire if you need further clarification of what harm is.
And when there is choice between several harms, which one takes precedence and Why?
The lesser. I don't need to explain that to you do I?
That is what human rights is about. It is about the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. A peaceful individual doing no harm to others should be allowed to do what the >hell they please within those confines because that is their right as an individual.I have rights because I have rights? Sez Who?
Most country's legal systems, the United Nations, Amnesty Interational. The definition of human rights says you have human rights, as even though you'd happily deny gay people their human rights you still have them yourself. You might not respect human legal and governmental apparatus and the laws they pass and uphold, but I can prove they exist.
And who defines what is harm and what is not harm?
Repeating yourself only empahsives the fact you have no facts and have to repeat yourself to make it look like you have anything worthwwhile to say. An eight year-old child could do it quite well. Courts are more consistent. Why do you have a problem with it? Is it because the fact it is such a simple thing to give a straight answer would create a question?
Why gay parade is not harm to christians,
Upset is not harm. You might argue it 'harms' you to have gay people around. I could argue it 'harms' me to live in a soceity where fat people wear lycra. Neither of those is real tangible harm, just intolerence of others.
why abortion is not harm to baby,
It does, silly. However, abortion normally takes place when the baby has less nerve tissue than a pet rat, or when the baby is so profoundly damaged its parents think it best to spare it a short and painful existence. Thus in one example, the 'baby' is actually not a person yet, has no individuality in the sense even a new born can, indeed doesn't even have the neural tissue required to BE a person. In the other example the parents choose an action they consider less harmful.
Now, you show me where it says abortion is wrong in the Bible. You won't be able to. All you'll be able to do is maybe quote a scripture and say 'this means abortion is wrong'. There is no law that says 'abort no babies' or even uses the term for abortion - even though babies were aborted in the period the Bible was written. You've given a great example of where you are swallowing down man's opinion and claiming it to be god's word. I'd read the last verse of Revelation if I were you, as that's BAD.
and why euthanasia is not harm to ill people?
It does silly, but they (if they are still they) have decided it's LESS harm to die peacefully and quick than slow and painful, or when someone no longer can express an opinion, that their loved ones feel the same.
And why Christian opposition to harm babies, values of family IS Harm?
I didn't say it was and you making statements that imply I have claimed things I haven't make you look dishonest. Stop it.
Why the INDIVIDUAL is allowed to define what is harm to him and what is not? This is how you give Individual rights to rule the majority. What is Harm? Who defines it? Phisical injury? Obviously something else? Mental injury? Well... it depends on mental helth and you can simulate it to gain some advantage. What is Harm and how do you prove it?
More pointless repetition. And more putting words in my mouth. Can you be a little less repetative and a little more honest in your replies please? No one said an INDIVIDUAL defines harm. LAW defines harm, and law is the concensus of societies opinions interpretted by professional people. I can prove both exist. Where is your god?
Well how homosexuals are harmed if they are not allowed to have marriage which requires fulfillement of some prerequirements. Family is given it's rights because it produces tax payers. Gay marriage does not produce such additional value to society, so they can't be provided with additional rights.
This argument only makes sense if people were obliged to produce tax payers if they got married. There is no obligation. A gay marriage can adopt children, gay women can bear children, gay men can father children, just as heterosexuals can decide not to have children or be infertile. Why can't you celebrate two people loving each other?
Because you worship a book and have lost sight of love.
>Ah... please confirm whether you are declaring some people are sub-human on account of their sexual orientation. I want to know what I am dealing with.I declare, that rights are given to have some mechanism working. Families have their rights coz they produce tax payers.
Just as a matter of interest, please provide the scriptual proof for that.
Or human has rights to live... why it is not applied to unborn humans? Why women rights of choice is higher then humans right to live?
Most abortions take place when there is no comparison between the fetus and a born baby in terms of its brain. An eight week old embryo and a brain-dead body on life support might both have human DNA, but are they equal in rights to a born human? Answer, obviously, no. Neither has the level of brain activity that makes us humans. So you would have the rights of a woman infringed to save something that is not equal in rights to her on account of it being undeveloped, all because you think the Bible rules against abortion, when it doesn't, but loads of people say it does. See the risks worshipping opinion and books puts you at?
I am against giving rights to somebody who does not fulfill requirements to gain the raights.
You are avoiding answering a simple question, probably because you are afraid of the reaction saying 'some people are sub-human on account of their sexual orientation' would get.
Sorry, my english is terrible :(
Better than my Dutch and far beter than my Latvian.
So were you converted or born into whatever religious group you follow? What group are you a member of? Are you performing a minsitry here?
This one is for the Politically Correct Crowd:
Is there no 'absolute truth'? Do you want to live that one out? You then have no moral basis for any law in any society. Everything is relative and I mean everything! Anything at all goes. You have no right to condemn anyone for any act, no matter how depraved. Woops, 'depraved' is not a term since it assumes some absolute truth. Let's get down to 'brass tacks' here. Everyone wants to push this suicidal argument on people who claim that morality is valid. How about it, everyone?
Let's try abortion on for size. Since it is up the woman to decide what happens to her body that makes partial birth abortion acceptable, right (that's where a 'doctor' crushes the skull of a late term baby and sucks his/her brains out)? If that is ok then why is it illegal to dispose of a newborn that is not aborted? What about a child who is a month old? Six months?
Let's do 'gay rights' next, the marriage issue. Why would it be wrong for two men and a woman to get married or any combination of the above (including critters, LOL)? Let's go for broke on this one. Why is it wrong for adults to 'know' children (as NAMBLA likes to claim)?
Going by this premise there are no laws that should be enacted, much less enforced! There is no absolute truth, everyone? We have to be consistent, don't we? You are trapped in a 'argument by suicide'.
Let us define our terms first, okay?
Truth IS what conforms to reality; to things as they ACTUALLY are.
In a court of law you swear to tell the Truth.....the WHOLE truth...and NOTHING BUT the truth.
This means a total picture of the reality of a situation.
Nothing is added and nothing is omitted.
So, absolute truth would be the WHOLE PICTURE as accurate in detail as can be accounted for by matching a description with reality.
Nothing impossible about that; just very hard work doing the measuring and filtering.
Most of us make do with a close approximation. We look at our paycheck, for instance, and we multiply the hours we worked by our rate of pay and check the result.
Our dollar amount must conform to the TRUTH of math or we raise hell about it. We conform to a world of numbers measuring events, things and people because math conforms to reality. When we telephone a friend all the numbers have to match the reality of the friend's phone number or we don't reach them. Reality intervenes.
Having a MORAL BASIS for law in society is a separate issue.
We do have a MORAL basis for law in society. It too is reality.
LIFE is at the basis of reality for humans. What enhances and improves our life is the core of our morality; the core of our LAW.
The concept of a RIGHT needs to be defined.
The right to YOUR OWN LIFE is the source of all other rights. The reality of human life is that you must have the freedom to act on your on behalf to improve your condition. The fact of life and death requires that freedom and ability. What improves your condition (food, shelter, clothing, education, purpose, etc) is what constitutes the PROPER course of action. To do otherwise is to choose dysfunction, illness, ignorance and death.
No right exists that does not purport to allow a person to take an action necessary to maintain his own life and implies he has the freedom to act.
Fact: All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man's mind and his labor. Just as you cannot have effects without causes; so too you cannot have wealth or prosperity without cause: man's intelligence.
NOT DEPRIVING yourself or others of the right to use intelligence, skill and talent to obtain self-advantage (without destroying that same opportunity for others) is the basis for MORALITY.
Man has to work and produce to create the opportunity to enjoy necessities. Being UNHINDERED is the nature of the human RIGHT.
It is all a practical matter.
In the United States we have laws which give is the RIGHT to
1.LIFE
2.LIBERTY
3.PURSUIT of HAPPINESS
In a nutshell this means without LIFE there is nothing else possible.
Without the LIBERTY or freedom to act on your own behalf you are a slave.
Thirdly, the opportunity to act (freedom) in your own best interests to produce what is needed to improve your condition to the point of satisfaction (HAPPINESS) requires actions permitted within society.
This is a MORAL premise.
T.
Seeing as non-theistic morality has been pretty well defended here, I'll just ask the same simple question I've been asking, that is - The "politically correct crowd" that this screed is so contemptuously addressed to....is going to burn in hell forever...right?? So please, why are you worried or even concerned??? --- It's a valid question! --- Do you not believe it to be an Absolute Truth that your God is going to bring punishment times infinity to these depraved, truthless, immoral, rotten scumbags? If life on earth is just a blink of 70 or 80 years followed by either everlasting bliss or torment depending on the judgement one receives -- as Christian fundyism would have us believe -- then what is the point of your post? Are you trying to save us? I'm doubtful of that, your tone is often so brimming with spitefulness that I can't possibly believe that you're motivated by such a lofty goal. I think that, deep down inside, you know that this life is it - dirt and maggots are the only things that await our death. Now there's an absolute truth. And the reason for your moralizing is because you believe that if people subscribed to the same moral system that you do, we'd have a better world. Which may or may not be true. But if I'm correctly attributing your motives (regardless of whether or not you are fully conscious of exactly what they are), then your morality is based on the same yearning that atheists and liberals and everybody else has - the yearning for a society which allows the greatest number of people to experience the greatest happiness in this life. You only use ancient notions of gods and afterlifes of unending torments to bully - as in, "you'd better get your synapses firing in the same patterns as mine do or else you're really really in for it after you die!!!!". Which is so profoundly stupid and transparent. And you know it. So, if you want to talk about why you think abortion or gay marriage or whatever is bad for society because these things lead to less rather than more general happiness, then I'm all ears. You may be correct. But realize that your desire is the same as everybody else - you want happiness in this life. And that is the basis for your morality, and it's the same basis as everybody else's. So stop looking down your self-righteous nose at us, pretending that it's anything otherwise.
The existence of absolute truth is an undeniable reality. The only one I know of who tried as much as he could to live without absolute truth was Friedrich Nietzsche, and ultimately he himself failed. People who deny absolute truth only deny certain absolute truths that they personally disagree with. But when they are agreeable to a certain absolute truth, then all of a sudden they sound like fanatical fundementalists.
Take for instance the absolute truth that it is wrong to be a hypocrite. Why? After all, if hypocrisy works for them who am I to judge? If there is no absolute truth, I have no right to judge you for being what I consider a hypocrite.
How about being a self-righteous, judgemental bigot? Since there is no absolute truth, if it works for you, who is to say that that you should not be a self-righteous, judgemental bigot. Aren't I imposing my own values when I say that you have no right to be a self-righteous, judgemental bigot?
We exchanged traditional absolute truth for more politically correct absolute truth. We discard traditional absolute truth such as abstinence outside of marriage, going to church, refraining from abortion but we hold onto absolute truths such as hypocrisy is wrong, a religion that enslaves others is wrong, and judging others is wrong.
Let's be honest with ourselves. We all still believe in absolute truth. Its inescapable to believe in absolute truth. Everytime something ticks us off, we betray the fact we believe in right and wrong.
