God-given rights?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, because the Founding Fathers are all big names in theology. Oh yes, and there are clear scriptures that you can appeal to in order to establish their argument, which is why you already have quoted the book of Hezekiah several times in this discussion. I mean, this is just *obvious*. And the idea that they are just strongly influenced by a contemporary philosophical movement, one that is not primarily religious and nature, but that tends to come to the same conclusions, and where the philosophical movement is known for being somewhat historically unique in coming to those conclusions.

Look, zer0netgain, I've questioned the validity of your theological claims several times in the past, and you have NEVER provided evidence. Look, it isn't my job or Orwell's job to examine every single possible half-baked conclusion that some person comes to. There are tons of bs claims, if someone wants to prove that they have more than bs, then they need to put up or shut up, and if you've read these "great theological conclusions", then it seems almost certain that you would either be able to reference where they are, or even cite the theology yourself.(note: honestly, I doubt the latter would be compelling from you, but still, it could theoretically be done)

I know you don't have a real case. Loonies tend not to. People who don't actually put forward a friggin' case tend not to.

Actually, IT IS.

You are coming into an INTERNET FORUM and asking heavy questions that proper academicians have spend YEARS researching and documenting, but you expect any of us to just lay out in simple terms what they discovered.

Do your own damn research. I know the things I believe in are generally true. I do not have the time or resources to regurgitate, at length, every article, every book, every whatever I came across that formed my belief. Even if I could, you would still be disinclined to believe me, so I am not going to do all that just to waste my time and energy.

What you ask for is about one step above asking someone to prove a negative. It's not that I could not give you what you want...it's just that I don't have the time. I'm fitting in most of my posting while getting work done at the office. It would take me several days or even weeks of dedicated research to find the hard documentation you want. I might be able to quickly find some published works discussing the issue, but the odds are you still won't bother to get them and read them for yourself...you want me to articulate their contents.

I've been around and around this type of dead-end argumentation on other forums. I'm happy to share my opinion, beliefs and insight. I'll try to support with what I can come off with from the top of my head of a quick few minutes of researching, but when the other side demands more than that or starts trying to discredit my sources, I just walk away. Most times, the other side is never going to change their mind regardless of what proof you offer. You can't convince someone of something they don't want to believe, and when it breaks down into two sides saying "Is not....IS TOO", it becomes an exercise in futility.

I enjoy the lively and passionate debates we have in this forum, but there is only so far I'm going to take it. I don't lose sleep over whether you accept or reject my point of view, and I doubt you really care if you change my mind either.

There was no such thing as Judeo-Christianity in the 18th century. Judeo-Christianity really started with the Darby heresy of the 19th century.

No, it really isn't our responsibility. Secondly... y'know what, you're right, I don't actually care. I might look up on the source. I might not. I think you're a nutcase regardless and you've shown that pretty consistently. If you gave a source, I'd really halfway expect it to be an internet site where the author also goes on about how the Jews invented central banking. So... y'know, if you've accepted that you'll be dismissed and won't put forward the effort to seem legitimate, and I don't think you're legitimate at this point, then... I don't care.

Precisely.

Not dissing on you in particular, but I've had this out with other people who wanted me to prove everything to the Nth degree only to ultimately go to lengths to discredit any source I produced or just plain find the evidence "unpersuasive."

Trying to win debates on the Internet is one of my OCD traits I'm getting better at letting go of.

No, I've spent 8 pages rejecting non-answers. Philologos misinterpreted the question and then got offended; 91 rejected my request for a theological grounding of rights as the wrong approach, several people early on chimed in saying that there is no theological grounding, JCW rejected the existence of God but went on to posit a foolish Randian notion of "rights." None of these were actual, serious attempts at a theological grounding of rights.


Um... Jefferson wasn't a theologian. Not sure if you knew that or not. I have repeatedly asked if the Founders and other Enlightenment-era thinkers were at all justified in their claims that rights were derived from God, since they don't seem to have put forward a whole lot of evidence for it.


You have any to recommend that address this issue?


I would have been perfectly willing to accept a post saying "This guy has been studying the issue, go read some of his stuff" since that would at least have given me something substantive to address and respond to. Do you actually know of any academics who have been researching this, or are you making crap up as usual?


No, it isn't. At all. I said, "Here is a claim that I've seen advanced. Does anyone have supporting evidence?" The answer has been a resounding "no."


Except I wasn't even asking for definitive proof, or for anyone to convince me. I just wanted to know that a legitimate case could be made. That is all. I don't need to be convinced; I just need to see that the viewpoint actually exists. Heck, if I saw anything approaching a decent conception of God-given natural rights, I'd probably jump right on board.


Spot on, thank you for phrasing it more clearly than I apparently was able to.

I even loosened this standard later on for 91, but he still wouldn't bite. Any support from any religion's holy texts, any theological thinker, any church tradition, would be acceptable as evidence here. I think that's being relatively broad and generous in the evidence that I'm willing to consider, but still no one has brought any forward.

I decided to do a bit of research on the subject and I think perhaps the Bahá'í faith meets this standard.

Bahá'i Religion

Not surprisingly, it is a very young religion, not even 200 years old. I'd say this is further evidence for rights of man being enlightenment era ideas and not from an earlier theological source, considering they influenced the formation of Babism and inevitably Bahá'í in the 1800s

Ah, thank you, I had forgotten about the Baha'i. Where's Khan_Sama when you need him?

I'll have to look in to it more closely. I've been rather skeptical of a lot of Baha'i claims in the past, but this is a step closer to saying "Yes, there is a possible theological grounding of human rights."


Unfortunately, I think you are probably correct here. Baha'i has taken (relatively) liberal stances on many social issues, and emphasized the issues that were a big deal at the time. I have generally gotten the impression that this has been the result of them establishing a theology to match their views of a good society, rather than deriving ideas of a good society from their theology.

Buried in the Decalogue are the rights to property and life. The Ten Commandments are not The Bill of Rights but they do stand forth rightly in favor of being secure in one's property and person. The Jewish law in addition, limits involuntary servitude which can only persist for seven years unless a person agrees to become a lifelong servant. Under Hebrew law, slavery is more like indenture than outright ownership of a person.

To be sure, life under the Hebraic law, was not an exercise in libertarian freedom, but it went a long way in checking abuses to persons and property, considering it was operative at the end of the bronze age.

ruveyn

I'm surprised none of the theists mentioned it, really. I have always thought Bahá'í is a very interesting religion.



That is a logical explanation. I wonder what sort of religions will come into existence in the next few hundred years, and what fundamental values they will hold.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Godly-He ... 0925279293

This one readily comes to mind. Typically, when I promote someone read it, they immediately try to discredit the writer, so I stopped making recommendations. If you don't want to pay full retail, I'm sure half.com or some other used seller could get it in your hands cheaply...maybe it's at your local library.

A propaganda piece claiming that all our problems derive from secularism is not a theological work. And it does not actually address the question anyways. My question was not "What did the Founders believe?" since I can look that up easily enough. Note that the Founders often believed things incompatible with orthodox theology.

Thus far apparently only an Atheist (me ) has been able to find a religion that might actually include God-given rights as part of its theological grounding, as opposed to the beliefs evolving over time as people made their own interpretations. Ah, the irony. I can't do all your research for you, Theists! Though I hope the gesture is appreciated

Any concept that cannot be grounded in perceptual observations is necessarily fallacious. There is no way to prove something that cannot be observed. Disproving the negative claim of the existence of a supernatural god is impossible through logic, because the argument is forced to reference the illogical in a foundational manner. In other words, there is no answer except that existence exists, this is the primary fact that all concepts are based upon. Anything outside of that existence has no ability to make a claim concerning that which does.

Incorrect. Abstract mathematical systems cannot be observed.

@Orwell:

Not directly, but the concepts can be traced back to observable foundations. Their validity depends upon it.