Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Austin_Bill, Apr 28, 2020.
my point, which as usual appears to have gone right over your pointed little head, was that God doesn't pass out such rights, they are created by men, mostly at gunpoint. God was not shooting redcoats at Concord or Lexington.
If God was giving out such rights, He appears to have by passed large portions of the world where such rights do not exist.
God did not attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia where the 2nd Amendment was hatched or write the opinion two hundred years later which clarified that the right is individual, Justice Scalia did that.
God speaks through prophets. Some listen, some don’t.
I am a proud gun owner, and Meal Team 6 here invariably pisses me off...
Based on your comments you are a Positivist, corrupted by one strain of Post-Modernism. There is no objective truth only power.
You can point to God or even nature and derive natural law and natural rights. We each have rights, not conferred on us by those in power. They can only protect. Because you are correct many evil men have infringed on others natural rights.
We have a right to have life and not have it taken from us. That is why murder is a sin and illegal. Because we have a right to life we have a right to the things we have taken possession of in order to support our own life. We aren't entitled for others to give things to us, but we have a right to keep our honestly attained property that we use to support our lives. That is why theft is a sin and illegal.
We have a right to do with our mouths and bodies those things that provide for our own lives and don't directly or dishonestly bring harm to others. That is why we have a right to pursue happiness, assemble, say and write what we want.
There is a God and our worship is due Him. We have a right to worship Him (or not) without others throwing us in jail.
I could go on and on. The opposite is Positive Law. The king or President or governor can make any order they want, and they can jail, beat, and kill to force others to do what they want. Doesn't matter what the law is and its purpose, if power can be used to force obedience it is "good and right"
Those are your two choices.
I only get two choices? Where is that Written? And by Whom?
Think a bit, it'll come to you.
People who don't know God, sure do like to act like they do. Since this is a discussion about Judeo-Christian beliefs, the Bible is the ultimate authority on God's view of rights.
So lets start with a few scriptures
Jeremiah 34: 12-15
12 ¶ Therefore the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,
13 Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel; I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying,
14 At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee; and when he hath served thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee: but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear.
15 And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name.
I'd say God puts a premium on our Liberty.
How about Galatians 5: 1, 13
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
2 Corinthians 3:17
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
I got more if you need them.
Now use scripture again to justify slavery.
"Again" implies I used it once before. You are of very low intelligence, I'd say I have a mentally challenged aunt that is smarter than you.
I believe I just implied the opposite with my last post, but again people of low intelligence might not put the two together so I probably have to spell it out for you. I will use short sentences and small words so you can keep up.
God said slavery wrong.
God said Liberty good.
God said all people should have liberty.
God said Democrats are dumbasses
That last one was my interpretation.
Interpretation is a big word.
It means telling you want something means.
Hope this helped.
Thomas Jefferson (who was one of our least religious founding fathers) thought otherwise. The rights come from God. Good governments and good men protect and reinforce our rights. Evil governments and evil men try to interfere with and undermine our rights. We also have free will and can abuse our rights to commit sin.
This is why to be truly free one must also have a high level of morality. You cannot force morality on people, if they don't have it, then they are like animals and thus need cages, rules, and punishments affixed to those rules. Which pretty much brings us to the current state of our Country. All the gun laws in the world and it hasn't stopped Chicago from being a war zone on the South side. Very few gun laws in Utah and very little gun violence.
Not so much. Morality can be defined in so many ways that morality can be fatal to freedom, as previously discussed.
I tend to look at morality not from the idea of sex which is a narrow view, but from the idea of how we treat each other in society.
Typical liberal Trojan Horse by AOC. Slips banning semi automatic guns in as one item in a list of several other talking points. As this gentleman points out, nearly every modern day handgun is a semi-auto. There should be no confusion - the Left is not trying to pass "common sense" gun reforms. They want to completely ban gun ownership.
If the rights come from God but everyone doesn't have them, does that mean God is a slacker?
As for Jefferson, did he favor arming the slaves so they could protect their rights?
So many questions.
How long do you wait to turn on the radio or tv when you wake in the morning?
No. It means that man has the potential for great evil.
No. He was inconsistent. That doesn't make him generally wrong.
Perhaps "self-control" is a better term than morals. Self-government without self-control will not work.
Being moral means people are treating each other with care and love. It means laws and their enforcement are not needed as much but at the same time have the approval of society in general.
Just because all the religions of the world are believed by their adherents to be the TRUTH does not mean that they are not just mirages and just because they are mirages does not mean there is no water.
Just two options? Jeez, where do you people come up with this zhit?
huisache, you really took offense to the 2 options statement, huh?
I think categorically there are basically but there are different versions or shades of the 2 categories. Roughly, I think of them as objective vs subjective or Positivist vs Natural or Lockean vs Hobbesean.
I was more trying to show the argument for the Lockean, Natural Law category, which says that people can discover law a priori that is based in human nature that leads to our flourishing. At the opposite end of the spectrum is Positivist, rule of men, might makes right. You initial comments sounded like that, so I was trying to compare those 2 ideologies.