Sorry Paul Ryan, No one get's their rights from god.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Endorra

 

intelligent impaired

My personal opinion is that "intellectually impaired" would have been more grammatically accurate, or even "intelligence impaired". Just a thought.

edit on 31-8-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Wow you sure got me on my grammar.
AWESOME JOB!!!!!!

I just felt that my version was more grammatically eloquent. We do live in a diverse world, however.

edit on 31-8-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Super duper.
You took an entire post to suggest better grammar.
I said awesome.
This is way off topic.
I have my reason to go take a bath instead of waste time arguing with you.
I made my point.
Hopefully someone else will have said something intelligent when I get back and pick up where I was before I was stopped by that one lonely post about my grammar.
You made your point and I gave it to you.
We all clear on that now?
Hope the mods remove this whole exchange.
I pray you never make a grammatical error.

the relevant phrases in our government documents refer to "self-evident" truths. other such ineffible phenomena include (but are not limited to) love, beauty, grace, etc...

so to say that a man or his institution can grant a right would be akin to claiming that a man can make something beautiful.

it is true that a man can make a thing (or destroy it). however, a thing can never be MADE to be beautiful. either it is, or it is not.

reply to post by Endorra


Just so long as we are clear on the unalienable rights issue, everything else is secondary. Your post was just too edgy to pass up a valuable critique.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Our Founding Fathers' Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

en.wikipedia.org...

I see however that you agree with Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin and POTUS that we get our rights from the Supreme State or maybe from the Humanist Manifesto.

Rights are a construct of man.

Get off your high horse and put down the kool-aide I.V

Tens of millions of men's rights were trampled upon here on God's Earth, god
did not intervene.

God gives free will which includes the ability to rape and enslave.

Wake Up

Originally posted by Endorra

Take my OP and replace god with nature every single time and then reply.
See if you can stuff your attitude while you do it.
I did not realize that I had to write my post for the intelligent impaired. I am the one that quoted him. If your nature is more powerful than someone else' god, then great. Bring it. Just being impudent because you are angry that you feel I took a shot at your imaginary friend is not forwarding the discussion.

I

reply to post by thepresident


You believe the Declaration of Independence to be kool aid? You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I champion that right. I also disagree with you on that point, and so do many millions of other people who value that document.

reply to post by blamethegreys


Your post is delightfully humorous. You get my applause.

Originally posted by blamethegreys
Get the hell off your pity pot already. Live your life, believe what you want, quit whining about everyone else!

What?
I honestly do not even know how to respond to this. I am whining about EVERYONE ELSE?

Can't you see you are doing EXACTLY what you are complaining about? Proselytizing your beliefs but bashing the opposition!

No, because I am not. I am neither proselytizing nor pushing a belief. What I have stated is a fact. If you have a counter argument, get with it. Stop just being an angry troll, clicking on threads just to post about how much you dislike that thread.

As to the content of the quote, the (well understood) idea of inalienable rights aren't about knit-picking liquor licensing or the potential to get murdered. It's about the idea that men should be free to live life in peaceably, to pursue whatever goals and careers they desire. To reap the rewards of their choices, for good or bad.

So rights have limits?
Interesting.
Who sets those limits?

Originally posted by Endorra
So I guess I am asking
If your god gives you these rights but they can still be taken away by humans, what good is your god or the rights you believe he gives you?

So I guess I am asking
If your god gives you these rights but they can still be taken away by humans, what good is your god or the rights you believe he gives you?

God appoints our Leaders and raises each civilisation up. That civilisation (kingdom), as seen throughout a good study of history, shows exactly the same thing. They all end when it's leader and people rise up in direct rebellion against Him, denying His Sovereignty. It is the story of Babel as seen throughout scripture.

God gives us life and He subjects all of us to living within certain days of each of those kingdoms. Each 'kingdom' goes through many stages from establishment to it's end. Peaceful years are experienced when the majority of the population walk in His ways, and painful years are experienced by those in the years when men stop walking in His ways. You and I live in the latter stage, whereby most no longer walk in justice, mercy and love. That very life that He granted is now being denied by man, man fights to make himself God and Creator. Man fights for the right to kill this life through abortion, fights for the right to genetically alter, and fights for the rights of things that only bring misery and suffering to others. They not only do not walk in his ways, but they start to insist that they no longer need Him in any capacity including denying His very existence. He then appoints leaders to take away everything because the people are in rebellion to Him. Instead of 613 laws, we get perhaps a 100,000 laws to govern our existence. As we corrupt, we get corrupted leaders. As we no longer value life, our leaders no longer value any life. Eventually, a Nimrod rises that destroys. Many know that we are very close to that last stage.

You fail to see that the populace gets what it deserves. You fail to see that God is both just and merciful. Leaders could not take away our freedoms of God if we walked in His ways because the leaders that He raised would walk in those ways. Instead of examine our society - the prostitution and the demand for it, the 4,000 babies butchered a day, the alarmed homes and cars, the overflowing prisons, the tens of thousands of murders and rapes, the thousands of abducted and molested children, the rampant stealing from pirated films to bank robbery, you instead argue that DESPITE all of that wickedness and evil, GOD IS A FAILURE because He does not reward you by allowing you to keep the very freedoms of life that He Himself granted to you.

Live a life of joy and peace by choosing good and life. Live a life of misery and hardship by choosing evil and death. Those are the choices He gave to us. But once His definition of good becomes lost, man get's their definition of good from their wicked leaders, and it becomes a never ending spiral as that definition of good is continually allowed to lower until evil is viewed as good. What you cannot see is that you are in rebellion, that you are a brick in Babel instead of a stone in God's temple, fighting for His blessings of peace and joy without doing a darn thing to deserve them and by denying His very existence.

Ron Paul as a "Christian" would never have credited "nature" as a source of "rights".

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by blamethegreys
Get the hell off your pity pot already. Live your life, believe what you want, quit whining about everyone else!

What?
I honestly do not even know how to respond to this. I am whining about EVERYONE ELSE?

OK, I concede 'whining' isn't the appropriate word. What you're doing is finding an issue, then wrapping a loaded question around it trying to unsmart the believers. But you're doing it cause you probably have some grudge against believers, or God, or both. You're baiting them into a no win debate, because there is no answer that will satisfy your standard. Some might call that trolling.

Can't you see you are doing EXACTLY what you are complaining about? Proselytizing your beliefs but bashing the opposition!

No, because I am not. I am neither proselytizing nor pushing a belief. What I have stated is a fact. If you have a counter argument, get with it. Stop just being an angry troll, clicking on threads just to post about how much you dislike that thread.

Hey, I reserve the right once a year to be an angry troll. There's only so many "God Sucks!" vs. "Atheists Suck!" threads I can ignore before I accidentally land in one. And the arguments have been exactly the same since I began lurking here 5 years ago. The answers will never be good enough, on either side of the fence. It's like trench warfare...except the soldiers never die, they're just damned to miss the target for eternity. You know why? 'Cause of this

What I have stated is a fact.

In a philosophical debate there is no "fact". There's opinions and arguments of reason, but even in the end there's never any fact. A believer can counter that God's hand works in mysterious ways, helping the good guy and hindering the bad. It's philosophy: You can't fact check belief.

As to the content of the quote, the (well understood) idea of inalienable rights aren't about knit-picking liquor licensing or the potential to get murdered. It's about the idea that men should be free to live life in peaceably, to pursue whatever goals and careers they desire. To reap the rewards of their choices, for good or bad.

So rights have limits?
Interesting.
Who sets those limits?

OK, 'nuff mudslinging. Your original question posited:

So I guess I am asking
If your god gives you these rights but they can still be taken away by humans, what good is your god or the rights you believe he gives you?

Let me refer back to the previous lines in your OP as well:

So where does God come into any of those rights? Not only are they mostly made up by men outside the scope of any word we have from any god but they are enforced by men and we let them.

If God enforced those rights upon mankind, I submit he would be violating the very same rights, no better than the men who curb and chip away at our rights today. Without choice, how can we 'pursue happiness'? Do we have any liberty if we are shackled to a God's choice? Would we yearn to violate another's peace, simply because it was an unobtainable goal?
If God granted those rights (most importantly free will, aka pursuit of happiness) he could not violate the rights of another who's pursuit took him down a murderous path. In violating one person's inalienable rights to preserve another's inalienable rights, neither men truly have inalienable rights, do they?

All men are born with a moral compass. Find a healthy young child raised in a healthy home and (aside from mental illness) 99.9 times out of 100, they don't want to hurt anyone. If they have, they feel bad. It's built into us. But here's the thing: With our free will we can ignore that morality, and impose our will on others.

So I guess the take-home message is:

God cannot violate the rights granted, but men can, because men are peers with equal rights to choose.
What good are the rights then?
I'd like to think that by honoring others' rights I am living in better alignment with what the universe ought to be.
By doing so I also hope to set an example for others to follow, increasing peoples' rights beyond the scope of my own direct work.
I personally feel that there comes an intangible benefit to the individual from respecting others' rights.

What we collectively as a species do with these rights is up to us.

Endorra, I was thinking about your attitude about one of the most important of our Founding documents, and I realized it might not be entirely your fault, as there has been a deliberate attempt in the schools and Universities to not properly teach about our Constitution. This is the reason why Glenn Beck, formerly a history teacher, endeavors to again teach people the value of our Founding Fathers and the documents created by them in the creation of the nation America.
Francis Bacon aka Shakespeare wrote of America, calling it the New Atlantis. He had a vision for the New World as a place where people could be free from the dictates of tyrannical overlords.
If one takes the name America and rearranges the letters, one comes up with something new.... I Am Race or race of people who understand the I Am That I Am. In case you are also not aware of what I Am That I Am is, it's in the story of Moses and the Burning Bush. The Burning Bush was the bush that burned but was not consumed by the fire infolding itself. The Burning Bush represents the Presence of God whose name is I Am That I Am. The Burning Bush spoke to Moses and Moses asked the Bush who shall I tell them you are and the Burning Bush said "Tell them I AM hath sent thee".
Early Theosophists knew of the special place America has in the world as an example of freedom and liberty. It is what it is....as they say.
So in ending my discourse on the Constitution and what it really means spiritually and metaphysically, I will post the last statement of Romney's keynote address at the RNC.

If I am elected President of these United States, I will work with all my energy and soul to restore that America, to lift our eyes to a better future. That future is our destiny. That future is out there. It is waiting for us. Our children deserve it, our nation depends upon it, the peace and freedom of the world require it. And with your help we will deliver it. Let us begin that future together tonight.”

foxnewsinsider.com...

The point here is that the marxist professors in the schools do not want people to understand these important founding principles and that is why I am telling you on this forum and why I think it is not your fault you didn't understand what the Declaration really means. It is a travesty for the POTUS to go around apologizing to the world and then continuing the complete destruction of this great country and what it truly stands for.

My take on it is that claiming that rights are given by nature and God is simply not true. We have possibilities derived by those two. But, society is a group of people that agree to do some stuff and avoid doing other stuff. With that is a hierarchy of power. So, the fact that we are organized gives us rights. That is the contract of society. Read some Hobbes to get wiser on that subject. This is a philosopher that will change some light on it.

As for the political side, this is a vague statement. Very thin and vague. A philosophical claim that even lacks backing in other philosophical claims. And, it has obvious logical fallacies.

But, logic or brains has never been the strong point of the republicans. For instance the trickle-down model has not worked at all lately. The rich keeps getting richer while the poor keeps getting poorer. That's why Obama didn't launch another quantitative easing. It's because if he gives money to the banks, they'll use it for bonuses that ends up off-shore.

I do think that the republicans can win this election. If they do, plenty of Americans will end up having their Medical safety-net taken away from them, and USA will be isolated diplomatically. And, the rich will continue to get their tax-breaks. And, abortion will be one of the rights that will come under attack. Obama is bad, the republicans are worse if you are an average citizen. I don't envy the lack of choice in US elections.

reply to post by Endorra


I can only guess you missed the part where I said "they can only provide consequences." Is prison not covered under the consequences they can provide?

Originally posted by eNumbra
Implying that those people were not working as an extension of god's will; that it all is in fact free will, rather than predetermined; that's another debate however.

Nope, not even a little. If they are acting on behalf of god's will, then that means your god is taking away rights that you think cannot be taken because they were given by him.
That entire argument fails upon itself.

You're missing the point of what he's saying by focusing on the word god.

I am not focusing on the word god, most of the rest of you are. He included nature. I do not care if he said the Easter Bunny. My argument would be the same.

He's saying that the government doesn't grant us the rights outlined in the constitution but that we always have them, that we're born with them. (not that anyone in the federal government actually stands by this notion anymore)

edit on 8/31/2012 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)

We are born with just the rights in the constitution?
Does that mean that people born before certain amendments were born differently?
To a different god?

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Endorra

 

I can only guess you missed the part where I said "they can only provide consequences." Is prison not covered under the consequences they can provide?

I did not miss a thing.
I can only guess you failed to read my entire post.
What rights do you have in prison?
Yes, going to prison is a consequence.
While you are there though, you lose a ton of rights. No matter what your god or nature does, you cannot just go for a drive, meet a girl for a coffee, have sex, eat any food you want, go outside when you choose, etc. etc. etc.
These are rights that are no longer available because you are in prison as a consequence for your crime.

You seem to think being sent to prison is all there is. What you are forgetting is the time in prison. There is a difference between say...paying a fine, and being imprisoned.

reply to post by Endorra

What good is my right to eat when I hungry if I get arrested whenever I steal food? Humanity gives me sexual urges at what may be inappropriate times and places. This does not always include a partner that is aware of my urges or even existence. Are you telling me I have a right to act on those urges anyway? Even if I get arrested for it, it is still a right?

I think you misunderstanding what I was trying to say. I wouldn't say anyone has a "right" to do such things and I felt I made that clear when I said ones persons rights end at the moment they violate another persons rights". Anyhow, what I was trying to explain was that we are born with the ability to make choices and that we have the ability to make negative and positive choices. All rights basically come down to the ability to make choices as you please.

The point I was making is that they are born with that choice and that choice can't be taken away, therefore one is born with those rights. I am in no way defending the current system, saying it was far from perfect would be an understatement. Everything short of violating the rights of another should be legal IMO.

Originally posted by blamethegreys
I

Sorry Paul Ryan, No one get's their rights from god.

Yeah they do altho some people just can't stand that thought. Our rights come from the creator funny how those documents do not say "Our rights come from government", or "our rights come from other men".

It is a concept lost on some who believe in the divine right of Government and Government dictated justice call it whatever people want to call it.

Irony or just plain sadness all men are created equal all men are equal under the eyes of their creator by whatever name they call it but one thing is crystal clear from the founding of this nation.

Government is not the creator, they are the destroyer of men, their hearts,their souls, their wealth.

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by blamethegreys
I